Skip to main content

Full text of "History of Dogma"

See other formats 


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 



I 






THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY 



Edited by the Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor 
OF Interpretation, Oxford; and the Rev. A. B. BRUCE, D.D., 
Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis Free 
Church College, Glasgow. 



VOL. XI. 
HARNACK'S HISTORY OF DOGMA. VOL. VI. 



HISTORY OF DOGMA 



BY 



Dr. ADOLPH jiARNACK 

ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY itTxHE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW 

OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN 



TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION 



BY 



WILLIAM M*GILCHRIST. B.D. 



WILLIAMS & NORGATE 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London 

20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh 

AND 7 Broad Street, Oxford 

1899 



I 



.H35 



TRANSLATOR'S NOTE. 

As at several places in this volume Latin quotations are largely 
introduced, so as to form portions of the text, these have in 
many cases been simply reproduced in English. Where the 
meaning is less obvious, and the reader might desire to be made 
acquainted with the original, the Latin has been inserted within 
brackets. 



vu 



CONTENTS. 

PART II. 

DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA. 

BOOK IL^ Continued. 

Expansion and Remodelling of Dogma into a Doctrine of Sin, 
Graee, and Meatts of Grace on the basis of the Church, 

Pftge. 
CHAPTER IK^History of Dogma in the Period of Clugny, 

Anselm^ and Bernard ... - - i — 83 

Introduction ------- i 

1. Fresh rise of piety ------ 3 — 15 

Clugny. Renunciation of the world and rule over it 

Monastic training of the dexgy - - - - 3 

The Crusades and their consequences for piety - 8 

The piety of St. Bernard - - - - - 10 

Objectionable elements in his Mysticism - - 12 

2. Development of Ecclesiastical Law ... - 16^23 
Development of the papacy into an autocracy. The Paftal 

Decretals .---... 16 
The new ecclesiastical law more definitely framed. Union 

of law and Dogma • • • - 19 

Jurisprudence as a dominant force - - 21 

3. Revival of science -....- 23 — 44 
Essence of Scholasticism • - - - 23 
Scholasticism and Mysticism • - - * 25 

^Tbe two chapters which make up this volume answer to Chapters VII. and VIII. of 
Part II. f Book II., in the Original German Edition. 

ix 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 



Preparation in history for mediaeval science. Its relation 

to Greek science. The inherited capital • - 28 

The Carlovingian Era • - - • - 30 

The period of transition - - • * 30 

The Eleventh Century. The prevailing influence of 
Realism. The question of the Universals. The 

Dialecticians - - - . - - 32 

** Aristotelianism " - - - - - - 36 

The negative and positive significance of the science of 

Abelard ------- 37 

Disciples and opponents of Abelard. Reconciliation of 

Dogma with Aristotle - - - - 42 

4. Elaboration of Dogma ..... 45—83 

Introduction - - - - - - 45 

a. The Berengarian Controversy - - • - 46 
Doctrine of Transubstantiation as framed after the 

Controversy - - - - - - 51 

The importance of the Fourth Lateran Council for the 

doctrines of the Eucharist, Baptism, and Repentance - 53 

b. Anselm's doctrine of Satisfaction - - - - 54 
Criticism of this doctrine - - - - - 67 
Its limited measure of influence - - - - 78 
Doctrine of the Merit of Christ. Abelard's doctrine of 

Reconciliation - - - - - - 79 

Peter Lombard - - - - - 81 

CHAPTER IL—History of Dogma in the Period of the Mendi- 
cant Monks ^ till the beginning of the Sixteenth Century - 84 — 3 1 7 

Introduction - - - - - - 84 

I. On the history of piety .... - 85 — 117 

St. Francis, the Apostolic life, the Franciscan piety (the 

Waldensians, and the " Poor " of Lombardy) - - 85 

St. Francis and the Church - - - - 91 

The doctrine of poverty, the different tendencies, the 

Fraticelli and the Spirituales - - - - 94 

Conservative influence of the religious awakening upon 
Dogma - - - - - - -96 

Mysticism and the Mendicant Orders - - 97 



CONTENTS. xi 

Page. 
Mysticism as Catholic piety - • - - 97 

Description of Mysticism, Pantheism, the rise of Indivi- 
dualism - - - - - - - lOI 

Thomist and Scotist Mysticism .... 105 

Quickened activity in practical life - • - 108 

The awakening of the laity, free associations, and 
preachers of repentance - - - - no 

The stages in the development of piety -in 

Piety in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ; its opposi- 
tion to the Church - - - - * 113 

Piety, Dogma (unassailed), and the Church ; glance 
forward to the Reformation - - - - 116 

Gothic architecture as the style of building corresponding 

with mediaeval piety - • - - - 117 

On the history of Ecclesiastical Law. The doctrine of the 

Church .---.-- 118 — 149 
The supremacy of the papal system ; jurisprudence as a 
commanding influence - - - - -118 

The leading thoughts in the papal system with regard to 
the Church - - - - - - 119 

The doctrine of the Pope ; the new forgeries ; infallibility 121 
The Concordats ; national churches - - - 126 

The slight share of theology in fixing the hierarchical 
conception of the Church - - - -127 

The negotiations with the Greeks ; Thomas's conception 

of the Church ..-.-- 130 
The opposition to the hierarchical and papal conception of 

the Church is to be traced to Augustinianism - - 132 

The conception of the Church held by the opposing parties 
has a conunon root with the hierarchical, and differs 
only in its conclusions - • - - - 134 

Hence the ineffectiveness of its criticism - - - 136 

The opposition of the Waldensians, Apocalyptists, Fran- 
ciscans, Imperialists, and Episcopalists - - - 138 
The conception of the Church held by Wyclif and Huss, 

and their opposition to the hierarchy - - - 141 

Criticism of this movement ; Dogma, as strictly understood, 
remains unassailed - - - - - 1 46 



Xll CX)NTENTS. 



Page. 



Positive significance of the Wyclifite and hierarchical 

conceptions of the Church - - - - I47 

. On the history of ecclesiastical science - - - I49— 173 
The causes of the revival of science at the b^inning of 

the thirteenth century (Arabs, Jews) - • - 150 
The victory of Aristotle and of the Mendicant Orders. 

••Qualified" Realism - - - - - 151 
Scholasticism at its zenith, its nature, and relation to the 

Church and to reason ..... 153 

The science of St. Thomas - - - - - '55 

The "Summa" of St. Thomas - - - - iS7 

Transition to Duns Scotus - - - - - 160 

New stress laid upon reason and authority, Nominalism - 161 

Probabilism, Casuistry, and fides implicita - - - 162 

Eliminination of Augustinianism - - • - 166 . 
Augustinian reaction in the fourteenth and fifteenth 

centuries. Bradwardine, Wyclif, Huss, Wesel, Wessel 169 
Decline of Nominalism, the re-discovered Plato, the 

Renaissance ...... 170 

. The Moulding of Dogma in Scholasticism - - . 174 — 317 

The pre-supposit ions of the thi rteenth century Scholasticism 1 74 
The finis theologise (the idea of salvation) and its main 

elements .---.-- 174 

The old articuli fidei and the doctrine of transubstantiation 176 
The threefold task which Scholasticism carried out with 

regard to Dogma ; strained relation with piety - - 176 

a. Revision of the traditional articuli fidei - - -178 

(i) The doctrine of God - - - - - 178 

(2) The doctrine of the Trinity - - - - 182 

(3) The doctrines of creation, preservation, and government 1 84 

(4) The doctrine of the person of Christ (of the Holy 
Ghost) - • - - - - - 187 

The doctrine of the work of Christ (satisfaction and merit) 190 

The doctrine of Thomas - - - - - 191 

Of Duns Scotus - - - - - - 196 

Disintegration and reaction - - - - 198 

d. The Scholastic doctrine of the Sacraments - - 200 

Significance and principle ..... 200 



CONTENTS. JClll 

Page. 

Number of the Sacraments ..... 201 

Definition (Hugo and the Lombard) .... 204 

Their nature, relation of grace to Sacrament ... 206 

Questions in detail -...-.. 209 

The Thomtst doctrine of the Sacraments - • - 210 

(The Sacraments in their operation, their character - - 210 

Definition, materia, forma, etc. ..... 212 

Necessity ..----.. 213 

effect -..-..-. 214 

Cause) - - -- - - - - 217 

The administrator of the Sacrament (minister sacramenti) - 217 

Conditions of saving reception, disposition ... 220 

Attritio ........ 225 

Peculiarities of the Scotist doctrine of the Sacraments - • 226 

The Sacraments singly. Baptism • • - - 227 

Confirmation ....... 230 

The Eucharist ----... 232 

Sacrament of Penance ------ 243 

(Sorrow .---.--. 248 

Confession - - - - - - - 251 

Absolution ....... 25$ 

Satisfaction - - - - - - - 257 

Indulgence - - - - - - 259 

Opposition to indulgences ; Wyclif, Huss, Wesel, Wessel) - 267 

Extreme unction - - - - - . - - 269 

Ordination to the priesthood - - . . . 270 

Sacrament of Marriage ----.. 272 

Transition to the doctrine of grace .... 275 

c. Revision of Augustinianism in the direction of the doctrine of 

merit -.---..- 275 

The Lombaid on grace, freedom, and merit • - 276 
Thomas. Elements of principle in the Scholastic doctrine of 
grace, the conception of God, grace as participation in the 

divine nature, merit ...... 279 

Thomas's doctrine of grace (lumen superadditum natures, gratia 
operans et cooperans, prseveniens et subsequens), essence of 
grace, disposition for grace, its effects, forgiveness of sins, 

love, merits de condigno et de congruo • - - 281 



XIV 



CONTENTS. 



Historic eslimate of the Thomist doctrine of grace, connection 

with Augustine (doctrine of predestination) and Aristotle 
Thomas on the primitive state, original righteousness (justitia 
orig^alis), the Fall, Sin ..... 

Evangelical counsels (consilia evangelica) ... 

The Thomist doctrine of sin and grace faces in two directions - 
The later Scotistic Scholasticism : its doctrines of sin and grace 
its doctrines of justification and merit (Bradwardine's reaction) 
Supplement : The doctrines of the immaculate conception of 
Mary, and of her co-operation in the work of redemption 



Page. 



- 295 



297 
29S 
500 
301 

312 



HISTORY OF DOGMA 



HISTORY OF DOGMA. 



»« 



CHAPTER I. 

HISTORY OF DOGMA IN THE PERIOD OF CLUGNY, ANSELM, 
AND BERNARD, TILL THE CLOSE OF THE TWELFTH 
CENTURY. 

A TENACIOUSLY maintained tradition relates that in the closing 
years of the tenth century the Christians of the West looked 
forward with fear and trembling to the destruction of the world 
in the year looo, and that a kind of reformation, expressing itself 
in the keenest activity in all branches of religion, was the con- 
sequence of this expectation. This representation has long since 
been proved a legend ; ^ but there lies at the basis of it, as is the 
case with so many legends, an accurate historic observation. 
From the end of the tenth century ^ we really discern the be- 
ginnings of a powerful rise of religious and ecclesiastical life. 
This revival grew in strength, suffering from no reaction of any 
consequence, till the beginning of the thirteenth century. During 
this period it released, and took command of all the forces of 
mediaeval manhood. All institutions of the past, and all the 
new elements of culture that had been added were subjected to 
its influence, and even the most hostile powers were ultimately 

1 The eschatological ideas were always strong and vigorous in the Middle Ages, 
but for a time they certainly asserted themselves with special intensity ; see Wadstein, 
Die EschaL Ideengruppe (Antichrist, world-Sabbath, world-end and world-judg- 
ment) in den Hauptmomenten ihrer christlich-mittelalterlichen Gesammtent- 
wickelung, 1896. But Wadstein again thinks that the year 1000 was contemplated 
with spedal suspense (p. 16 f.). 

* On the tenth century, see Reuter, I.e. I., p. 67 ff. 

k 



2 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

made to yield it service and support. In the thirteenth century 
the supremacy of the Church and the system of the mediaeval 
view of the world appear in perfected form.^ 

This perfecting is the conclusion^ not only of Mediceval Church 
history^ but also of tfiat historical development of Christianity^ the 
beginnings of which lie as far back as the history of the primitive 
Church. Certainly, if Christianity is regarded only as doctrine^ 
the Middle Ages appear almost as a supplement to the history 
of the ancient Church ; but if it is regarded as life, our judgment 
must be that it was only in the Western Church of the Middle 
Ages that the Christianity of the early Church came to its com- 
pletion. In ancient times the Church was confronted with re- 
strictions in the motives, standards, and ideas of ancient life. 
These restrictions it was never able to break through, and so it 
continued to be with the Church of the Eastern Empire : 
Monachism stood alongside the Church ; the Church of the 
world was the old world itself with Christian manners. It was 
otherwise in the West. Here the Church was able to apply 
much more effectively its peculiar standards of monastic asceti- 
cism and domination of this world by the world beyond,* because 
it had not to subdue an ancient civilisation, but met with its 
restrictions simply in the most elementary forces of human life, 
in the desire to live, hunger, love and cupidity. It was thus 
able to propagate here through all circles, from the highest to 
the lowest, a view of the world which would inevitably have 
driven all into the cloisters, had not these elementary forces 
been stronger than even the fear of hell. 

It is not the task of the History of Dogma to show how the 
mediaeval view of the world was fully constructed and applied 
from the end of the tenth (for here the beginnings lie) till the 
thirteenth century. Substantially not much that is new would 
be discovered, for it is still the old well-known body of thought ; 
what is new is merely the application of the material to all 
provinces of life, the comprehensive control in the hands of the 
Pope, and the gradual progressive development in its prior 

> See V. Eicken, Gesch. und System der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, 1887. 
* From this there lesulted a new kind of dominion over the world, which certainly 
became very like the old, for there is only one way of exercising dominion. 



CHAP. I.] THE FRESH RISE OF PIETY. 3 

Stages of religious individualism. But before we describe the 
changes, partly really, and partly apparently slight, which dogma 
underwent down to the time of the Mendicant Orders, it is 
necessary to indicate in a few lines the conditions under which 
tliese changes came about. We must direct our attention to the 
fresh rise of piety ^ to the development of ecclesiastical law^ and to 
the beginnings of mediaeval science. 

I. The Fresh Rise of Piety, 

The Monastery of Clugny, » founded in the tenth century, 
became the centre of the great reform which the Church in the 
West passed through in the eleventh century.^ Instituted by 
monks, it was at first supported against the secularised mona- 
chism, priesthood (Episcopate),* and papacy by pious and 
prudent princes and bishops, above all, by the Emperor, the 
representative of God on earth, until the great Hildebrand laid 
hold of it, and, as Cardinal and successor of Peter, set it in 

1 The foUovring partly corresponds with my Lecture on Monachism (3rd ed. 1886, 
p. 43 ff.). Two sources appear in the tenth century from which the religious 
awakenings proceeded, the Monastery of Clugny, and the Saxon dynasty. We 
cannot attach too much importance to the influence of Matilda (cf. in general the 
Essay by Lamprecht, Das deutsche Geistesleben unter den Ottonen in the deutsche 
Zeitschrift f. Geschichtswissensch. Vol. VII., part i, p. i. ff.). It extended to 
Henry II., and even, indeed, to the third Henry; v. Nitzsch, Gesch. des deutschen 
Volkes I., p. 318 f. For the history of the world the ecclesiastical sympathies of the 
dynasty, and the spirit of ascetic piety that emanated from the saintly devotee in the 
Quedlinburg Convent were of as great importance as the reformed monachism of 
Qugny. The history of mediaeval Germanic piety may be said to have begun with 
Matilda. Charlemagne is still in many respects a Christian of the type of Constantius 
and Theodosius. 

• From Hauck (K. -Gesch. Deutschlands III., p. 342 ff.) and the work of Sackur, 
Die Cluniacenser in ihrer Kirchl. und allgemeingesch. Wirksamkeit bis zur 
Mitte des 11. Jahrh. (2 vols., 1892-1894) we learn that the reform of Clugny had for 
centuries to contend with the same difficulties against the secularised Church and the 
secularised, but also more independent monachism (see also Hauck, *' Zur Erkl&rung 
▼onEkkeh. Cas. s. Galli" c. 87 in the Festschrift f. Luthardt, p. 107 ff.) as had the 
old monachism formerly on its introduction about 400 into Gaul and Spain (and as 
hid the Minorites at a later time). It is instructive to notice the attitude of the laity 
Ml connection with these three great reforms of the Church. Towards the first they 
*Ht substantially indifferent, in the second they took a share from the outset 
(>Slliist the ^cularised clergy), the third (the Minorite) was simply carried out 
^thcm. 



4 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

opposition to the princes, the secularised clergy, and the 
Emperor. What the West obtained in it was a monastic reform 
of the Church, that rested on the idea of a view of the world 
that made everything alike, and that consequently favoured the 
universal supremacy of Rome over the Church. What were the 
aims of this new movement which took hold of the entire 
Church in the second half of the eleventh century? In the first 
instance, and chiefly, the restoration in the monasteries themselves 
of the " old " discipline, of the true abnegation of the world, and 
piety ; but then, also, first, the monastic training of the whole 
secular clergy ; second, the supremacy of the monastically trained 
clergy over the lay worlds over prifices and nations ; third, tlu 
reduction of national churches^ with tfuir pride and secularity^ in 
favour of tJte uniform supremacy of Rome} 

^ Sackur (II., p. 464 f.) characterises this French monastic reform thus : "The 
movement of Clugny did not start with announcing a programme : it was the product 
of a view of the world. It had no other aim than to oppose the coarse materialism 
of those days by reviving those institutions that admitted of an existence in sympathy 
with evangelical injunctions, even in the midst of a barbarised society. It was a 
foimation of autonomous associations, such as usually arise in disorganised States 
under a weak central government, and serve to supplement by self-help the great 
social unions of, e.g*^ State and Church. From this there resulted the design of 
influencing from these institutions those around, and winning them for religion. The 
restored monasteries increased in number, the task became always greater ; but it 
became in no way different. The winning of souls was, and continued to be, the 
real end. Connections became extended ; we have seen how ready the princes were 
to support the efforts of the monks. Very soon ever)' family of mark had its family 
monastery. . , . Monachism found its way to the courts ... by means of a con- 
spicuous social activity monachism gained hold of the masses. . . . Not a few 
bishops, especially in the South, were carried away by the current, friends of the 
movement came to occupy the Episcopal Sees. What followed was a spiritual trans- 
formation (but no transformation of any consequence of a literary and scientific 
kind. See what Sackur has stated, II., p. 327 ff.), giving pain to those who had 
previously built their house out of the ruins of the Carlovingian order of society, giving 
annoyance especially to a part of the Episcopate. . . . With this the opposition also 
was given. The ascetic Romanic movement issuing from the South mastered in the 
end the French North, captured the new Capetian dynasty, and here found itself 
confronted with an Episcopate which defended itself, in some cases, with desperation, 
against the assaults of a monachism that set out from the idea of a view of the world 
that made all things alike, ftom the thought of the universal Romanism, and that 
had no understanding for the independent pride of national churches. . , . The 
strict organisation of the German Imperial Church, its close union with the monarchy, 
the morality of the clergy (of a higher character as compared with the West-Frankian 
Church), still kept back the movement (at first) from the borders of Germany. It 



CHAP. L] the fresh RISE OF PIETY. $ 

The attempt to control the life of the whole clergy by 
monastic rules had already begun in the Carlovingian period ; 
but in part it had failed, in part the Chapters had only become 
thoroughly secularised. Now, however, it was undertaken anew 
and with greater efficiency. In the Cluniacensian reform 
Western monachism raised for the first time the decided claim 
to apply, and find recognition for, itself as the Christian order 
of life for all Christians of full age — the priests. This Western 
monachism could not withdraw from the task of serving the 
Church and urging itself upon it, i.e,, upon the clergy of the 
day, as Christianity. The Christian freedom which it strove for 
was for it, with all wavering, not only a freedom from the world, 
but the freedom of Christendom for unrestricted preparation for the 
life beyond, and for the service of God in this world. But no man 
can serve two masters. 

Herewith there was given also its relation to the laity, with 
the position of the latter. If the mature confessors of Christianity 
must be trained according to monastic rules, then the immature 
— and these are the laity — must leave an entirely free course to 
the former, and must at least pay respect to their majesty, that 
it may be possible to stand approved in the coming judgment. 
If Clugny and its great Popes required the strict observance of 
celibacy, the estrangement of the priests from secular life, and 
especially the extirpation of all " simony," then this last demand 
of itself involved, under the then existing distribution of power 
and property, the subjection of the laity, inclusive of the civil 
power, to the Church. But what was the Church's dominion over 
the world to mean, side by side with the renunciation of the 
world exacted of all priests ? How does that power over the 
earth harmonise with exclusive concern for the soul's salvation 
in the world beyond } How can the same man who exclaims to 
his brother who thinks of leaving him all the patrimonial pro- 
perty, "What an unjust division, — for thee, heaven, and for me, 
the earth," and who then himself enters a monastery — how 

was only the process of ecclesiastical and civil dissolution, which began under Henry 
IV., that opened the breaches through which the monastic Romanic spirit could 
penetrate into the organbmof the German State." — On Clugny and Rome, see Sackur 

II., p. 441 if. 



6 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I 

can this same man bring himself to contend from within the 
monastery for dominion over the world? Now in a certain 
sense this dominion is something substitutionary^ so long as and 
because the true^ universal Christianising has not been carried 
out. As long as all are not genuine Christians, the obstinate 
world and the half-developed Christendom must be governed 
and educated, for otherwise the gospel would be captured by 
the powers hostile to it, and would not be in the position to 
fulfil its mission. But the dominion is certainly not merely 
something substitutionary. Christianity is asceticism and the 
City of God. All earthly relations must be moulded by the 
transcendent and universal idea of God*s kingdom, and all 
national political forms of life must be brought under control in 
accordance therewith. But the kingdom of God has its exist- 
ence on this side of things in the Church. The States, therefore, 
must become subject to the divine ends of the Church ; they 
must merge themselves in the kingdom of righteousness and of 
the victorious Christ, which is a truly heavenly kingdom, be- 
cause it has its source in heaven, and is ruled by Christ's repre- 
sentative. Thus out of the programme of renunciation of the 
world and out of the supra-mundane world that was to permeate 
this world, out of the Augustinian idea of the city of God and 
out of the idea of the one Roman world-empire, an idea that 
had never disappeared, but that had reached its glorification in 
the papal supremacy, there developed itself the claim to world- 
dominion, though the ruin of many an individual monk might 
be involved in making it. With sullied consciences and broken 
courage many monks, whose only desire was to seek after God, 
yielded to the plans of the great monastic Popes, and became 
subservient to their aims. And those whom they summoned 
from the retirement of the cloisters were just those who wished 
to think least of the world. They knew very well that it was 
only the monk who fled from the world, and would be rid of it, 
that could give help in subduing the world. Abandonment of 
the world in the service of the world-ruling Church, dominion 
over the world in the service of renunciation of the world, — this 
was the problem, and the ideal of the Middle Ages ! What an 
innocent simplicity, what a wealth of illusions, was involved in 



CHAP. I.] THE FRESH RISE OF PIETY. ^ 

believing that this ideal could be realised, and in working for 
it I What a childlike reverence for the Church was necessary 
for developing that paradoxical *' flight from the world," which 
at one and the same moment could join the fight and pray, 
utter cursing and blessing, exercise dominion and do penance ! 
What a spirit of romance filled those souls, which at a single 
view could see in nature and all sensuous life an enchantment of 
the devil, and could behold in it at the same time, as illumined 
by the Church, the reflection of the world beyond 1 What kind 
of men were they, who abandoned the world and gladsome life, 
and then took back from the hand of the Church the good 
things of earth, love-making, cpmbat and victory, speculating 
and money-making, feasting, and the joys of sense ! Of course, 
with a slight turn of the kaleidoscope, all these things were in 
ruins ; there must be fasting and repentance ; but again a 
slight turn, and everything was back again which the world 
could afford — but glorified with the light of the Church and of 
the world beyond. 

At the close of this period (about 1200) the Church was 
victorious. If ever ideals were carried out in the world and 
gained dominion over souls, it happened then. " It was as if the 
world had cast aside its old garment and clothed itself in the 
white robe of the Church." ^ Negation of the world and rule of 
the world by the Church appeared to men identical. That age 
bore in its culture " the pained look of world-renunciation on the 
one hand, and the look of strong character suggesting world- 
conquest on the other." * But in the period we are reviewing the 
development, which had to cancel itself when it seemed to have 
come near its completion, was still in process. Much was still 
to be done in the way of excavating secularised Christendom 

1 The Cluniacensian monk, Rudolph Glaber, Hist. lib. III., 4. 

* ▼. Eicken, Lc., p. 155 f. If the early Church had had this latter characteristic 
expressed in its piety, it would inevitably have developed into Islam, or rather would 
have been crushed by the Roman world-empire. But the Mediaval Church from its 
9ngm (period of the migration of the nations) had absorbed into itself the Roman 
world-empire as an idea and as aforct^ and stood face to face with uncivilised nations ; 
hence its aggressive character, which, moreover, it only developed after Charlemagne 
had shown it how the vicarius Christi on earth must rule. Nicolas I. learned from 
Charles I., the Gregorian popes from Otto I., Henry II., and Henry III., how the 
nctor ecclesia must administer his office. 



8 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. L 

from its rough surroundings. And the masses were really 
changed in temper and set on fire — set on fire to contend against 
the secularised clergy and against simonistic princes in the whole 
of Europe. A new enthusiasm of a religious kind stirred the 
nations of the West, especially the Romanic. The ardour of the 
Crusades was the direct fruit of the monastic papal reform move- 
ment of the eleventh century. In them most vividly the religious 
revival which had passed over the West revealed itself in its 
specific character. The supremacy of the Church must be given 
effect to on earth. It was the ideas of the world-ruling monk of 
Clugny that guided the Crusaders on their path. The Holy 
Land and Jerusalem were parts of heaven on earth. They must 
be conquered. The dreadful and affecting scenes at the taking 
of the sacred city illustrate the spirit of mediaeval piety. 

Christianity is ascetism and the City of God — but the Church, 
which really fired souls for these ideas, lit also thereby the flame 
of religious individualism ; it awakened the power which was 
ultimately strong enough to burst through the strict bonds of 
system and sever the chain. But it was long before things 
went so far as this. The Cluniacensian reform, if I see aright, 
produced as yet no religious individualism at all, in the sense of 
manifold expressions of piety. The enthusiastic religious spirit 
of the eleventh century was quite of the same kind in individual 
cases. Among the numerous founders of orders during this 
period, there still prevailed the greatest uniformity: spiritual need, 
flight from the world, contemplation — all of them are expressed 
in similar forms and by the same means.^ An appeal must not 
be made to the Sectaries, already numerous in this century ; 
they stood in scarcely any connection with the ecclesiastical 
revival, and had as yet no influence upon it.^ 

1 See Neander, K.-Gesch. V., i, pp. 449-564. 

* Their doctrines were imported from the East — from Bulgaria ; that old remnants of 
sects survived in the West itself (Priscillians) is not impossible. But spontaneous 
developments also must be recognised, such as have arisen in all ages of the Church's 
history, from reading Scripture and the Fathers, and from old reminiscences. In the 
twelfth century, heresy became an organised power, frightfully dangerous to the 
Church, in some regions — indeed, superior to it ; see Reuter I., p. 153 f. , and D611inger*s 
work, Beitriige zur Sectengesch. des Mittelalters, 2 Thl., Miinchen 1890, in which 
the Paulicians, Bogomili, Apostolic Brethren and Catbarists are described. 



CHAP. I.] THE FRESH RISE OF PIETY. 9 

Through the Crusades this became changed. The primi- 
tive Christian intuitions were restored. The sacred places 
stirred the imagination, and led it to the Christ of the Gospels. 
Piety was quickened by the most vivid view of the suffering and 
dying Redeemer ; He must be followed through all the stages 
of His path of sorrow ! Negative asceticism thus obtained a 
positive form, and a new and more certain aim. The notes of 
the Christ-Mysticism, which Augustine had struck only singly 
and with uncertainty,* became a ravishing melody. Beside the 
sacramental Christ the image of the historical took its place ^ — 
majesty in humility, innocence in penal suffering, life in death. 
That dialectic of piety without dialectic, that combined 
spectacle of suffering and of glory, that living picture of the true 
communicatio idiomatum (communication of attributes) developed 
itself, before which mankind stood worshipping, adoring with 
equal reverence the sublimity and the abasement. The sensuous 
and the spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly, shame and honour, 
renunciation and fulness of life were no longer tumultuously 
intermingled : they were united in serene majesty in the " Ecce 
homo." And so this piety broke forth into the solemn hymn : 
" Salve caput cruentatum " (" O Lamb of God once wounded "). 
We cannot measure the effects which this newly-tempered piety 
produced, nor can we calculate the manifold types it assumed, 
and the multitude of images it drew within its range. We need 
only recall the picture — new, and certainly only derived from 
the cross — of the mother and child, the God in the cradle, 
omnipotence in weakness. Where this piety appears without 
dermatic formulae, without fanci fulness, without subtlety, or 
studied calculation, it is the simple expression, now brought 
back again, of the Christian religion itself ; for in reverence for 
the suffering Christ, and in the power which proceeds from His 
image, all the forces of religion are embraced. But even where 
it does not appear in its purity, where there is intermingled with 
it the trivial— down even to the heart-of-Jesus-worship ^ — the 

1 Sec Vol. v., p. 124 f. 

•Bcmh., Sermo LXII. 7, in cant, cantic: "quid enim tam efficax ad curanda 
consdentiae vulnera nee non ad purgandam mentis aciem quam Christi vulnerum 
sedola meditatio ? " 

' This certainly is also very old, and that, too, in bad forms ; it is not otherwise 



lO HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

over-refined and studied, it can still be salutary and worthy of 
honour, more salutary and worthy of honour, at least, than the 
strivings of a purely negative asceticism governed by no living 
conception. Even, indeed, where it manifestly degenerates into 
paganism, there will still remain some remnant of that liberating 
message, that the divine is to be found in humility and in 
patient suffering, and that the innocent suffers that the guilty 
may have peace. 

In the period under review, this newly attuned piety, born of 
the Crusades, and nurtured on Augustine as now understood, was 
still in process of growth. But we have already alluded to the man 
who stood at the beginning, though he was himself no initiator. 
Saint Bernard.^ Bernard is the religious genius of the twelfth 
century, and therefore also the leading spirit of the age. Above 
all, in him the Augustinian contemplation was revived. Too 
much is not asserted when it is said that he was Augustinus 
redivivuSy that he moulded himself entirely on the pattern of the 
great African,^ and that from him what lay at the foundation of 
his pious contemplations was derived. So far as Bernard fur- 
nishes a system of contemplation, and describes the development 
of love,* on to its fourth and highest stage, at which man, rising 
above self-love, is wholly absorbed in the love of God, and 
experiences that momentary ecstasy in which he becomes one 
with God — so far Bernard has simply experienced anew what 
Augustine experienced before him. Even his language indeed 
is to a very large extent dependent on the language of the 
Confessions.* But Bernard has also learned his relation to 

with the limb- worship of Mary. In the Vitt. Fratrum of Gerard de Frachet (about 
1260), published in the Monum. Ord. Fratr. Pnedic. Hist. I. (Louvain, 1896) the 
following is related of a brother : "Consueverat venerari beatam virginem, cor ejus, 
quo in Christum credidit et ipsum amavit, uterum, quo eum portavit, ubera, quibus 
eum lactavit, manus ejus tomatiles, quibus ei servivit, et pectus ejus, in quo recubuit, 
virtutum omnium apothccam spccialiter vcnerans, ad singula faciens frequenter 
hingulas venias cum totidem Ave Maria, adaptando illi virtutes, quibus meruit fieri 
mater dei," etc. 

1 See the Monograph by Neander, new edit, (edited by Deutsch, 1889) ; HUffer, 
Der hi. Bernard von Clairvaux, vol. I., 1886. 

3 This is true to a much greater extent than Neander has shown. 

^ Caritas and humilitas are the fundamental conceptions in Bernard's Ethics. 

* v. the Treatise De diligendo deo. 



CHAP. I.] THE FRESH RISE OF PIETY. 1 1 

Jesus Christ from the great leader. Like the latter^ he 
writes : " Dry is all food of the soul if it is not sprinkled with 
the oil of Christ. When thou writest, promise me nothing, 
unless I read Jesus in it When thou conversest with me on 
religious themes, promise me nothing if I hear not Jesus' voice. 
Jesus — honey to the taste, melody to the ear, gladness to the 
soul." * But here Bernard has taken a step beyond Augustine. 
" Reverence for what is beneath us " dawned upon him, as it 
had never dawned upon any Christian of the older world 
(not even upon Augustine) ; for these earlier Christians, while 
revering asceticism as the means of escape from the body, 
still, as men of the ancient world, were unable to see in 
suffering and shame, in the cross and death, the form of 
the divine. The study of the Song of Songs (under 
the direction of Ambrose), and the spirit enkindled by the 
Crusades, led him before the image of the crucified Saviour 
as the bridegoom of the soul. In this picture he became 
absorbed. From the features of the suffering Christ there 
shone forth upon him truth and love. In a literal sense He 
hangs on His lips and gazes on His limbs : " My beloved, saith 
the Spouse, is white and ruddy : in this we see both the white 
light of truth and the ruddy glow of love " (in hoc nobis et 
candet Veritas et rubet caritas), says Gilbert in the spirit of 
Bernard.' The basis for this Christ-contemplation — the wounds 
of Christ as the clearest token of His love — was laid by Ambrose 
and Augustine (Christ, mediator as man), and the image of 
the soul's bridegroom goes back to Origen and Valentinus 
(cf. also Ignatius) ; but Bernard was the first to give to the pious 
spirit its historic Christian intuitions; he united the Neoplatonic 
self-discipline for rising to God with contemplation of the suffer- 

^ V. Uie numerous passages in the Confessions. 

> Jesus mel in ote, in aure melos, in corde jubilus. In cantic. cantic. XV. 6. 

s How the cross of Christ is for Bernard the sum and substance of all reflection and 
ail wisdom, see Sermo XLIII. ; on loftiness in abasement see XXVIII. and XLII. ; 
de osculo pedis, manus et oris domini III. ; de triplici profectu anima;, qui fit per 
osculnm pedis, manus et oris domini IV. ; de spiritu, qui est deus, et quomodo 
misericordia et judicium dicantur pedes domini VI. ; de uberibus sponsi, i,e., Christi 
IX. ; do duplice humilitate, una vid. quam parit Veritas et altera quam inflammat 
caritAs XLII., etc. etc 



12 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

ing and dying Redeemer, and released the subjectivity of the 
Christ- Mysticism and the Christ-Lyricism.^ 

But in spite of all quickening of the imagination, and in spite 
of his most ardent devotion to the person of Christ, even 
Bernard was obliged to pay the heavy tribute that is exacted of 

1 See the Poems of Bernard and the 86 Sermons on the Song of Songs, which 
determined the character of the piety of the following generations. These sennons 
became the source of the Catholic Christ-mysticism. Ritschl, however, (Lesefrttchte 
aus dem hi. Bemhard, Stud. u. Krit. 1879, pp. 317-335) has noted (see Neander, I.e. 
p. 116), that in these sermons true evangelical thoughts also find expression. ** The 
cause of that I was constrained to see in this, that the preacher did not handle his 
doctrinal material in the historical order which dogmatic theology adheres to among both 
Catholics and Evangelicals — an order according to which the doctrines treated first 
are dealt with without regard to those that follow. We can sec rather, without 
difficulty, that the preacher uses the points of doctrine as they present themselves in 
the practical circle of vision." Ritschl points to the following ptassages (see also Wolff, 
Die Entw. d. einen christl, K. 1889, p. 165 ff.) : Scrmo LXIX. 3 (the gravity of 
original sin : the degree of injury is determined by regeneration) ; Sermo LXXII. 8 
(significance of death : among the redeemed "propter quos omnia fiunt," it must be 
regarded as an expression, not of God's wrath, but of His mercy, as the act of re- 
demption from the conflict between the law in the members and the sanctified will) ; 
Sermo XXII. 7-11 (righteousness by faith; it is not equivalent to power given for 
good works, but "unde vera justitia nisi de Christi misericordia ? . . . soli justi qui 
de ejus misericordia veniam peccatorum consecuti sunt . . . quia nan mado justtis 
sed et becUuSf ctii nmi imputahit deus pcccatum " ) ; Sermo XX. 2 ; XI. 3 ; VI. 3 
(redemptive woik of Christ : the work of love [ *' non in omni mundi fabrica tantum 
fatigationis auctor assumpsit " ], of which the modus is the exinanitio of God, its fruit 
nostri de illo repletio, and which is divine, because Christ here kept in view the way 
of acting which is God's way, who makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good. 
The communicatio idiomatum is not understood here in the Greek sense, but is 
exhibited in the motives of Christ ; VI. 3 : **dum in carne et per carnem facit opera, 
non camis sed dei . . . manifeste ipsum se esse judicat, per quem eadem et ante 
fiebant, quando fiebant. In came, inquam, et per camem potentcr et patienter operatus 
mira, locutus salubria, passus indig^a evidentur ostendit, quia ipse sit, qui potenter 
sed invisibiliter soecula condidisset, sapienter regeret, benigne protegeret. Denique 
dum evangelizat ingratis, signa praebet infidelibus, pro suis crucifixoribus orat, nonne 
liquido ipsum se esse declarat, qui cum patre suoquotidie oriri facit solem super bonos 
et malos, pluit super justos et injustos?"): Sermo XXI. 6, 7; LXXXV. 5 (the 
restored image of God in man) ; Sermo LXVIII. 4 ; LXXI. ii (the founding of the 
Church as the aim of redemption) ; LXXVIH. 3 (Church and predestination) ; Sermo 
VIII. 2, XII. II, XLVI. 4, LI. 5 (conception and marks of the historic Church, 
where the rigidly juristic view is quite absent : in XII. 1 1, it is said that no individual 
may declare himself the bride of Christ ; the members of the Church only share in the 
honour which belongs to the Church as bride). Cf also Ritschl, Gesch. des Pietismus 
I., p. 46 ff., and Rechtfert. u. Versohn, 1. 2 p. 109 ft'., where it is shown how for 
Bernard the thought of grace controls everj'thing. 



CHAP. L] the fresh RISE OF PIETY. 1 3 

every mystic, — the mood of abandonment after the blessed feel- 
ing of union, and the exchange of the historic Christ for the 
dissolving picture of the ideal. With him the latter is specially 
remarkable. It might have been expected that for one who 
became so absorbed in the picture of the suffering Christ, it 
would have been impossible to repeat the direction given by 
Origen and Augustine, that we must rise from the word of 
scripture, and from the Incarnate Word, to the " Spirit*' And 
yet this final and most questionable direction of mysticism^ 
which nullifies historical Christianity and leads on to pantheism^ 
was most distinctly repeated by Bernard. No doubt what he 
has written in ep. io6, on the uselessness of the study of Scrip- 
ture, as compared with practical devotion to Christ,^ may still be 
interpreted in the light of the thought, that Christianity must be 
experienced^ not known. But there is no ambiguity in the ex- 
positions in the twentieth sermon on the Song of Songs. Here 
the love to Christ that is stirred by what Christ did or offered in 
the flesh is described as still to some extent fleshly. It is na 
doubt a valuable circumstance that Bernard does not regard the 
distress and anguish awakened by the picture of the man Jesus 
as the highest thing, that he rather sees in it a portion of the 
fleshly love. But he then goes on to say, that in true spiritual 
love we must rise altogether from the picture of the historic 
Christ to the Christ Kara Trvcv/ma (after the spirit), and for this 
he appeals to John VI. and 2 Cor. V. 16. All the mysticism of 
after times retained this feature. It learned from Bernard the 
Christ-contemplation ;^ but, at the same time, it adopted the pan- 

^ " Why dost thou seek in the Word for the Word that already stands before thine 
, eyes as Incarnate? He that hath ears to hear, let him hear Him crying in the 
temple. If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. . . . O, if thou only 
once lastedst of the rich marrow of the grain with which the heavenly Jerusalem is 
atislied, how willingly wouldst thou leave the Jewish scribes to gnaw at their bread- 
ousts. . . . Expcrto crede, aliquid amplius invenies in silvis, quam in libris. Ligna 
et lapides docebunt, quod a magistris audire non possis.'' 

' Bernard was reverenced as an apostle and prophet " among all nations of Gaul 
and Germany." The lament of Odo of Morimond (see Hiiffer, I.e. p. 21 ff.) is 
▼ery touching, and proves at the same time the incomparable influence of his person- 
ality. Since Augustine, no such man had been given to the Church. **Vivit 
Bemaidus et nardus ejus dedit odorem suum etiam in morte." " His life is hid 
with Christ in God," with this the disciple comforted himself at the grave^ 



14 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. L 

theistic tendency of the Neoplatonists and Augustine.^ In the 
second half of the twelfth century the new piety was already a 
powerful force in the Church.^ The subjectivity of pious feeling 
was unfettered in the monasteries.^ But as the same man who, 

■** Verba ejus spiritus et vita erant." The recollection of the days when Bernard 
wandered as a preacher of the cross through the districts of Germany long survived ; 
for the Germans had never beard such a preacher. See the Historia miraculorum in 
itinere Germanico patratoruni in Migne CLXXXV. ; HUffer, p. 70 ff. (who certainly 
is remarkably credulous). The correspondence of Bernard stands alone in the 
twelfth century as regards importance and extent. Almost 500 letters by himself 
are extant. 

1 The ** excedere et cum Christo esse" (S. LXXXV.) was understood even by 
Bernard as meaning, that the soul loses itself, and in the embraces of the bridegroom 
•ceases to be a proper ego. But where the soul is merged " in the Godhead, the 
Godhead becomes resolved into the All-One. 

^ Follow Christ became the watchword ; it broke through the restrictions which 
dogmatic hat! drawn, and turned to the Lord Himself. For all relations of life, the 
suffcrinjj, humble, and patient Saviour was presented as an example. What a 
quickening vfzs the result ! But from this point it was posNible that a familiarity of 
feeling should develop itself, which conflicts with reverence for the Redeemer, and 
because the value of Christ was seen, in a one-sided way, in His example, other sides 
necessarily suffered neglect. With Bernard that was not yet the case ; but already 
in him it is astonishing how the Greek dogmatic scheme of Christology had to give 
place in praxi to a scheme quite different. After he has shown in the i6th sermon 
that the rapid spread of Christianity was due simply to the preaching of the person of 
Jesus, that the image of Jesus had assuaged wrath, humbled pride, healed the wounds 
of envy, checked luxury, quenched luit, bridled avarice, and, in short, had driven out 
all the lower passions of men, he continues : Siquidem cum nomino Jesum, 
hominem mihi propono mitem et humilem corde, btnignum, sobrium, castum, 
misericordem et omni denique honestate et sanctitate conspicuum eundemque ipsum 
deum omnipotentem. qui suo me et exemplo sanet et roboret adjutorio. Hajc omnia 
simul mihi sonant, cum insonuerit Jesus. Sumo itaque mihi exempla dc homint et 
auxilium de potente.^* Thus did one write, while in theorj' rejecting Adoptianism ! 
This Bemardine Christology, of which the roots lie in Aug\istine, requires no two- 
nature doctrine ; it excludes it. It is fully represented by the formula that Jesus is 
the sinless man, approved by suffering, to whom the divine grace by which He lives 
has lent such power that His image takes shape in other men, i.e.y incites to counter 
love and imparts humility. Caritas and humilitas were practical Chrislianii} , till 
St. Francis gave as much vividness of form to the latter in his demand for poverty as 
was to be exhibited by love in imitation of Christ in His course of suffering. All the 
ascetic treatises of the period speak of humility ; see Petrus Comestor, Hist, evang. 
c. 133 : ** est debita humilitas subdere se majori propter deum, abundans (humilitas) 
subdere se pari, superabundans subdere se minori." Note the distinction also, so 
important subsequently in the doctrine of the merit of Christ, between debita, 
abundans, and superabundans. 

> It counterbalanced the legal righteousness and **meritoriousness" that lay close 
at hand from other sides. Ritschl remarks very correctly (Rechtf. und Versohn. 



CHAP. L] the fresh RISE OF PIETY. I $ 

in the seclusion of his monastery, spoke a new language of 
adoration, preached flight from the world, and railed to the 
Pope that he sat in Peter's chair to serve and not to rule — as 
this man at the same time continued fettered by all the hier- 
archical prejudices of his age, and himself guided the policy of 
the world-ruling Church, even the pious in the Church in the 
twelfth century had not yet felt the contrast between Church 
and Christianity. The attachment of monachism to the Church 
was still of a naive kind ; the contradiction between the actual 
form of the world-ruling Church and the gospel which it preached 
was felt, indeed, but always suppressed again.^ That great 
mendicant monk had not yet come on the scene whose appear- 
ing was to work the crisis in the fluctuating struggle between 
renunciation of the world and lordship over it. But already the 
Church was beset all around by the wrathful curses of the 
"heretics," who saw in the Church's powerful exercise of her 
dominion and in the alienation of her gifts of grace the features 
of the ancient Babylon. 

I.*, p. 117) : ** It is an erroneous view that the Latin Catholicism of the Middle Ages 
was summed up in the cultivation of legal righteousness and meritoriousness." It has 
as its conrelate the mysticism that sacrifices the personal ego, to which at one time a 
theologico-acosmistic, at another time a christologico-lyrical character is given. But 
the simple trust in God, who reveals His grace in Christ, with the confession : 
" Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium, cui soli peccavi ** (Bcrnh. 
serm« in cant, xxiii. 15), was certainly not wanting in individual cases. Here and 
there, but above all in view of death, it triumphed, both over the calculations of legal 
righteousness and over the vagueness of mysticism. Flacius and Chemnitz were right 
in seeking and collecting testimonies for the evangelical doctrine of justification from 
the Middle Ages, and as Augustine in his day could justly assert that his doctrine of 
grace had its tradition in the pra^^ers of the Church, so Chemnitz also was entitled to 
affinn that the cardinal evangelical doctrine could produce evidence for itself from 
earlier times, " Non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nee in otiosis disputationibus, 
sed in seriis exercitiis pacnitentire et fidei, quando conscientia in tentationibus cum 
sua indignitate vel coram ipso judicio dei vcl in agone mortis luctatur. Hoc enim 
solo mode rectissime intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione, sicut in scriptura 
traditur." 

' The '* eternal gospel" of Joachim of Fiore belongs to the close of our period, and 
for a time remained latent ; see Reuter, I.e. H., p. 198 ff. 



l6 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. I. 



2. The Development of Ecclesiastical Law} 

Let us notice at least in a few words the increased activity 
in ecclesiastical law in the period under review, which was not 
without its influence on the mode of conceiving of dogma, and 
on the history of dogma. 

Firsts it is a fact of importance that from the middle of the 
second half of the ninth century, Church law was framed more 
and more on a Pseudoisidorian basis. Second^ the preponderating 
attention given to law in general, and the growing subjection of 
all ecclesiastical questions to legal conceptions are characteristics 
of the period. As to the first point, it is well known that the 
Popes always continued to take more to do with the administra- 
tion of the dioceses,^ that the old metropolitan constitution lost its 
importance, and that the old constitutional state of things in 
general — during the first half of our period — fell into decay and 
ceased to exist. The Episcopal power, it is true, strengthened 
itself in many places by assuming a civil character, and on the 
other hand, the Emperors, from Otto I. to Henry III. after having 
reformed the enfeebled papacy, brought it for a time into de- 
pendence on the imperial crown. But as they also deprived all 
laymen, who were not princes, of all share in the direction of 
ecclesiastical affairs, and as they suppressed the independence of 
the local ecclesiastical bodies (the congregations), in the interests 
of imperialism and of " piety," only the Emperor (who called 
himself rector ecclesiai and vicarius Christi), the Pope, and the 
bishops remained as independent powers. It was about the 
property of the bishops, and on the question as to who was the 
true ruler of the divine state and the vicar of Christ, that the 
great battle was really waged between the empire and the 
reformed papacy. In this struggle the latter, acting on the 

1 For the earliest period see Maassen, Gcsch. der Quellen und Litt. des Kanonischen 
Rechts I. vol. (till Pseudoisidore) 1870. For the laier period see v. Schulte, Gesch. 
der Quellen und Lit. des Kanonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf Gregor IX., 1875. 
See the introductions to von Friedberg's edition of the corp. jur. can. 

* Nicholas I., Leo IX., Alexander II., Alexander III. represent the stages prior 
to Innocent III. But Gregory VII. was the soul of the great movement in the 
eleventh century. 



CHAP. I.] DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. 1 7 

impulse given by Gregory VII., developed itself into the 
autocratic power in the Church, and accordingly after hav- 
ing freed itself in Rome from the last remnants of older 
constitutional conditions, framed its legislation by means 
of numerous decretals. At the " oecumenical *' Lateran Synods 
of 1 1 23 and 1 1 39, the papacy left no doubt as to this 
new position which it meant to assert^ The Popes after- 

1 The numbering of the CEcumenical Councils, which has now become a sentenlia 
communis among the curialist theologians, has been established on the authority of Bel- 
larmin (see Dollinger and Keusch, Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin, 1887, 
p. 226 ff. That previous to him Antonius Augustinus [ob. 1586] counted them in the 
same way, has been pointed out by Buschball : *' Die Professiones fidei der P&pste/* 
separately printed from the Riim. Quartalschr. 10 Bd., 1896, p. 62). In the sixteenth 
century there still prevailed the greatest diversity in the enumeration : indeed the 
majority did not regard those Councils in which the Greek Church did not take part 
as oecumenical at all. There was likewise conflict of opinion as to whether the 
Councils of B^le, Florence (and Constance), were to be reckoned in. Antonius 
Augustinus and Bellarmin (in the Roman edition of the Concilia generalia of 1608 f.)* 
included the Lateran Councils of 11 23 and 1 139 (and left out the Council of Bdsle). 
"The question, it is true, was of subordinate importance for Bellarmin, in as much 
as he places on the same level with the decrees of the General Councils those of the 
* Particular ' Councils held under the presidency of the Pope, or sanctioned by him ; 
but having in view those who held, not that the Pope, but that the General (jouncil 
was iii£dlible, it was certainly necessary for him to discuss the (question as to what 
Councils are to be regarded as general." But in thus determining the question, he natur- 
ally allowed himself to be influenced by his strong curialistic stnndpitint, that is, he set 
aside the Council of Constance and BiLsle, and placed among the (Ecumenical Councils 
that of Florence, the fourth and fifth Lateran Councils, the first of Lyons, and that of 
Vienna, on the ground that these favoured the pKipacy. He thus arriveil at the numbt r 
of eighteen a/^/vz^ General Councils (eight from the first ten centuries, the Lateran 
Councils of 1 123, 1 139, 1 179, 121 5, those of Lyons in 1245 ^"^ ^274, that of Vienna 
in 1 31 1, that of Florence, the fifth Lateran Council, and that of Trent). But here 
also, as everywhere in Catholic dogmatics, there are " half authoritieN, and half 
genuine coin, in spite of the Holy Ghost who guides into all truth. That is to say, 
iereial Councils are ** partly ratified, partly rejected," those of Constance and Basle 
being among them, and the Council of Pisa in 1409 is ** neither manifestly ratified nor 
nanifestly rejected." Since the year i8;o, the question alxout the number of the 
Coondls has completely lost all real interest for Catholics. But reactionary Pro- 
tatantL<nn has every reason to feel interested in it. Buschball (I.e. pp. 60, 74, 79), 
\fAA&i\aX in the Middle Ages a distinction in principle was not made between the 
view taken of the Councils of the first thousand years and that taken of those that 
•eie later. But he adduces no proof that prior to the (Council of Constance the 
liter Councils were placed quite on a level with the earlier, and even by what he 
adduces for the time subsequent uncertainty is suggested. How could the Mediaeval 
Cooncils be regarded even l)efore the Council of Trent as quite of equal standing with 
tlkoie of the first ten centuries, when, up to the time of this Council, the general 



1 8 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

wards, till the time of Innocent III., defended and strength- 
ened their autocratic position in the Church amid severe but 
victorious struggles. No doubt, they had to hear many an 
anxious word from their most faithful sons ; but the rise of the 
papacy to despotic power in the Church, and ihereby to dominion 
over the world, was promoted by the piety and by all the ideal 
forces of the period. Not in opposition to the spirit of the times 
— how would that have been possible? — but in union with it, the 
papacy ascended the throne of the world's history in the eleventh 
and twelfth centuries. Its opponents, so far as they possessed 
religion, were its secret allies, or contended with doubtful 
consciences, or, at least, were unable to show that the benefits 
for which they fought (national churchism, etc.) were the highest 
and the holiest. Under such circumstances the papal decretals 
obtained an ever-increasing authority.^ They took their place 

opinion was certainly to the effect that dogma was contained in fundamental and final 
form in the twelve articles, and Sn the interpretation relating to them which they had 
received from the older Councils ! The piocess of equalising was probably begun by 
the Councils of Florence and B&sle, with their high degree of self-consciousness 
That Councils at all could be pointed to in the long period between the ninth and the 
fifteenth centuries, was necessarily of more importance than the taking account of 
what was decided at these Councils, of how they were constituted, and of the authority 
that guided them. We may very well venture to say therefore : in the fifteenth century 
the equalising had begun with some hesitation, the Council of Trent favoured it liy 
its weight, and it then became established. 

1 On the development of the primacy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, sec 
Diillinger, Janus, p. 107 ff. (Schwane, Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters, p. 530 flf.). 
How much stronger was the Gregorian party in the eleventh century than the 
Pseudoisidorian in the ninth, and how nmch more revolutionary and aware of his aim 
was Gregory VII. than Nicolas I.! " He was the first who, with full, clear consci- 
ousness, was determined to introduce a new condition of things into the Church by 
new means. He regarded himself not merely as the reformer of the Church, but as 
the divinely chosen founder of an order of things such as had never before existed. *• 
His chief means were Synods held by the Pope (this was begun by Leo IX.) and new 
ecclesiastical law-books. 'Ihe nephew of Pope Alexander II., Anselm of Lucca* 
became the founder of the new Gregorian Church law, this being effected by him 
partly by making apt use of that of Pseudoisidore, and partly by a new set ot fictions 
(d.^., that the episcopacy everj-where originated from Peter) and forgeries. He was 
followed by Deusdedit, Bonizo, and Cardinal Gregorius. E>eusdedit formulated the 
new principle, that contradictions in the traditional Church law must always be 
harmonised by letting, not the older, but the greater authority, that is, the dictum of 
the Pope cancel the opposite view. In this way the autocracy of the Popes was 
established. On the series of new fictions and falsifications of the old tradition, sec 



CHAP. I.] DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. IQ 

beside the old canons,^ nay even beside the decrees of the 
CEcumenical Councils. Yet, strictly speaking, the measure of 
their authority remained still quite uncertain, and prior to 
Innocent III. dogmatic questions were not treated in them, or 
treated only very seldom, while the Popes in general, in the 
period of 150 years from the Synod of Sutri till 1198, had their 
hands fully occupied with establishing the Roman autocratic 
and monastic Church order. * 

In developing itself as the supreme court ol jurisdiction^ the 
papacy could never have obtained in the Churchy which assuredly 
is fellowship in faith and worship, monarchical rule as regards 
faith and morals^ had not the amalgamation of dognia and law 
become perfect in this period. It was not the Popes who brought 
about this fusion ; they merely turned to account a mode of 
view which prevailed everywhere, and from which scarcely an 
individual dissented. In what has been represented from the 
beginning of Book II. of our Second Part, it has been shown 
that the legal view of religion was an old inheritance of the Latin 
Church ; religion is lex dei, lex Christi. In principle, it is true, 
this view had been radically corrected by Augustinianism ; but 
Augustine himself allowed the legal schemes to remain in many 
important particulars. Then there followed the mission of the 
Western Church among the foreign nations, pagan and Arian. 
With these it came into contact, not merely as an institution 

Janas, p. :i2 ff. Specially important is the way in which history was induced to 
furnish testimony in proof of the infallibility of the papal decretals, and in which 
even Augustine was pronounced an authority for this new doctrine (p. 119 ff.). A 
sentence of his was so manipulated that it came to mean that the papal letters stood on 
a level with canonical Scripture. Since then the defenders of the infallibility of the 
Pope, to which Gregory VII. already made a distinct claim, and, indeed, treated it 
as conce&nim (p. 124 ff.), have always appealed to Augustine. Indeed, (Iregory VII., 
following an earlier precedent, claimed for the Popes a complete personal holiness — 
for they have all that Peter had— and ihe Pope's holiness, in addition to his infalli- 
bility, was so boldly taught by the Gregorians (imputation of the merit of Peter) that 
anything stronger in the way of claim became impossible. 

1 Alexander II. wrote to King Philip of France, requesting him to rank the papal 
decrees along with the canons ; see Jaff(^, Regesta, 2 Edit., Nr. 4525. 

• The Lateran Synods of 1 123, 1 139, 1 179, contain nothing whatever of a dogmatic 
duuacter (excepting the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of 1179, which urges 
Ae extermination of the Catharl, but says nothing of their doctrine) ; see Mansi XXL, 
XXII.,.nefele V.«, pp. 378 ff., 438 ff., 710 ff. 



20 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

for religious worship, but as the Roman Christian system of 
civilisation and law. Not simply as a system of faith did it wish 
and venture to assert itself; it could assert itself at all, rather, 
only by placing its entire equipment, and all its principles, some 
of which had an extremely profane origin, under the protection 
of the divine law. Thus the Germanic and Romanic nations 
came to regard all legal ordinances of the Church as ordinances 
of faithy and vice versd, Boniface and Charlemagne then set 
themselves to secure that the two would harmonise. The 
" must" became identical in the three sentences : " He who will 
be saved must believe as follows"; "the Christian must pay 
tithes " ; " adultery must be atoned for by this particular penalty." 
How busily the framing, or the codification, of Church law was 
carried on from the time when Dionysius Exiguus made his 
collection till the time of Pseudoisidore, is shown by the numer- 
ous collections which were everywhere produced — even in Rome 
still — by the rich synodical life of the provincial Churches, and 
which were meant to guard the independence, the rights, and 
the distinctive life of the Church in the new world of Germanic 
manners. Everywhere (prior to the ninth century) dogma fell 
quite into the background ; but just on that account the feeling 
became habitual, of regarding all deliverances of the Church as 
legal ordinances. The Cluniacensian-Gregorian reform of the 
eleventh century put an end to numerous traditional ordinances 
pertaining to constitution and law, and replaced them with new 
ones, in which the independence of the Church in relation to the 
State, and of Roman universalism in relation to the national 
Churches, found ever stronger expression. As the result of 
this, there developed itself in the eleventh century an imposing 
legislation, which was gathered up and completed in Gratian's 
collection — though this collection was in so far out of date and 
behind the facts, as in it the legislation was not yet determined 
throughout by the thought of the concentration of ecclesiastical 
power in the hands of the Pope.^ But besides their adoption of 
the Gregorian doctrines, this collection, and some older ones 
that preceded it, show quite a new turn of things, for they are 
the product of a study of law. Here also Gregory VH. was 

* See V. Schulte, Lehrbuch des Kathol. und evang. Kircheorechts 4 Aufl., p. 2a 



CHAP. I.] DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. 21 

epoch-making. He was the great jurist in the papal chair, and 
from his tune onward^ tlie treatment of all functions of the Church 
in accordance with juristic science began to be tlie main problem. 
The study of law, carried on chiefly in Bologna,^ exercised an 
immeasurable influence on the intellectual vision of the Church 
throughout its whole extent ; the study of law, indeed, moulded 
thought in general. Hellenism also at that time exerted an 
incalculable influence in the way of fostering this study. The 
Romo-Grecian legislation came into the West, and although, at 
the first, it began by modifying what was still a " barbarian " 
form of secular legal life there, and by building up a sovereign 
State with its laws and officials, it yet gradually exercised also a 
furthering influence on the construction of the strict monarchical 
Church system ; for what is legal for the Emperor is allowable 
for the Pope; or rather — he is in truth the Emperor. It cannot 
be doubted that here also Rome knew how to gather grapes of 
thorns and figs of thistles. The new rights of its adversary, the 
Emperor, it applied to itself. 

What had formerly developed itself under the force of circum- 
stances — the Church as a legal institution — was now strengthened 
and built up by thought* Juristic thought laid its arrest on 
everything. And yet even here need controlled the situation. 
For when the impulse to reflect is once awakened, what else can 
those at first become, who still live in a world of abstractions 
and are blind to nature and history, but jurists and dialecticians? 
Thus there settled down upon the whole Church, even upon its 
faith, the spirit of jurisprudence, now grown conscious of itself. 
Everything was laid hold of by it. It was a strong force in what 
is styled " Scholasticism " ; it governed the most powerful Popes 
(Alexander III. as Magister Rolandus), and it began to bring 

^ See Denifle, Die Univ. des Mittelalters I. 1885. Kaufmann, Gesch. der 
dentschen Univers. I., p. 157 ff. 

* See V. Schulte, Gesch. derQuellen, etc., I., p. 92 ff.; 11., p. 512 f. As Gregory 
VIL held still more strongly than any of his predecessors that the Church is the 
^ingliom founded upon Peter, and that everything is to be traced back to the power 
given to it, the UgcU organism was placed in the foreground ; see Kahl, Die Verschie- 
denheit KathoL und Evang. Anschauung iiber das Verhaltniss von Staat und 
Kirehc(l886), p. 7 f. : **The character of the Catholic Church as a legal organism is 
already involved in the doctrine of its founding, and in the conception of it." The 
Sliest and most reliable historic proofs in Hinschius, Kath. Kirchenrecht. 



22 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

within its sweep the form in which the traditional dogmas were 
presented. Certainly this was an easy matter for it ; for in their 
practical conclusions these dogmas had already been made to 
serve quite as legal means in a legal process. What still re- 
mained was to submit to juristic exposition even the central 
tenets of faith themselves, and so to justify and defend them 
"scientifically." Here too, indeed, the material was not entirely 
in a raw state ; to some extent, rather, the foundation stones 
had received a juristic shaping from the Latin fathers of dogma 
themselves (cf. TertuUian) ; but there was still an immense task 
presenting itself, to the full accomplishment of which an approach 
even had never been made ; it was to re-think the whole dog- 
matic tradition in the spirit of jurisprudence, to represent every- 
thing under the categories of judge (God), accused, advocate, 
legal measures, satisfactions, penalties, indulgences, to make out 
of dogmas as many distinctions as obtain in secular legal order 
between universally valid, relatively valid, probable, consuetudin- 
ary law, positive law, etc., and to convert dogmatics into a 
chamber of justice, out of which there was afterwards to develop 
the merchant's hall and the den of thieves. 

But in the period we are considering, the Church was certainly 
the basis and sum of the highest ideals of the mediaeval man, and 
the enormous contradiction on which one proceeded — had pro- 
ceeded indeed, from the time of Augustine — of regarding the 
Church as at once the society of the faithful (societas fidelium), 
and as the hierarchically organised assemblage (coetus), of re- 
cognising the secular power in its divine right and yet suppres- 
sing its authority, was by many scarcely felt.^ Only at the end 
of the epoch, did the inner antagonism become apparent; but 
the hierarchy had then already become the Church. Just at 
that time, therefore, the claim of the hierarchy, and specially of 
the papacy, was proclaimed as dogma, and the struggle of the 

^ In the valuable inquiry of Mirbt, Die Stellung Augustin's in der Publicistik 
des gregorianischen Kirchenstreits (1888) — cf. the same author's work ** Die Pub- 
licistik im Zeitalter Gregorys VII.," 1894 — the significance of Augustine for the 
struggles in Church politics in the eleventh century has for the first time been 
methodically and thoroughly described. It amounted directly to less than one would 
have expected, and it is noteworthy that the Antigregorians can show a larger heritage 
of Augustinian thoughts than their opponents (see Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1889, Col. 599). 



CHAP. I.] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. '23 

civil powers against the despotism of the Pope was declared to 
be as really rebellion against Christ as was the assertion of the 
sects that the true Church is the opposite of the hierarchy. This 
will have to be dealt with in the following chapter. 

3. The Revival of Science} 

Theologians and philosophers have vied with one another in 
endeavouring to find a specific definition of Scholasticism, and to 
difTerentiate what this term is meant to denote, from the theology 
and philosophy of the old (Greek) Church on the one hand, and 
from modem science on the other. These efforts have led to 
no accepted result ; nor could they lead to any such, for Schol- 
asticism is simply nothing but scientific thought. That this 
thought was governed by preiudices,^ and that from these it in 
some respects did not free itself at all, and in some respects 
freed itself only slowly, is shared by the science of the Middle 
Ages with the science of every age. Neither dependence on 
authorities, nor the preponderance of the deductive method, was 
specially characteristic of Scholasticism ; for science in fetters 
has existed in every period — our descendants will find that 
present-day science is in many respects not controlled merely by 
pure experience — and the dialectico-deductive method is the 
means that must be used by all science that has the courage to 
emphasise strongly the conviction of the unity of all that is. 
But it is not even correct to say that within mediaeval science 
that method prevailed alone, or chiefly. The realism that was 
represented by Albert and Thomas, acting upon impulses re- 

1 Sec the histories of philosophy by Ueberweg, Erdmann and Stockl ; Prantl, 
Qesch. der Logik Bd. II.-IV. ; Bach, I.e., I. and II. ; Reuter, Gcsch. der Aufkl. J. 
and II. : Lowe, Der Kampf zwischen deni Nominalismus und Realism us, 1876 ; 
Nitzsch, Art. Scholastische Iheologie in der R.-E,, XIII.*, p. 650 ff., where in p. 
674 £, the literature is noted. Dilthey, Einl. in die Geisteswissensch. I. Denifle, 
Lc.; Kaufmann, Lc., p. i ff. ; Denifle in the Archiv f. Litt.-u. Kirchengesch. des 
Mittelalters, I. and II. ; v. Eicken, I.e., p. 589 (f. 

'The fundamental prejudice, which, however, Scholasticism shared with the 
theology of antiquity, and unfortunately also of modem times, was that theology is 
cognition of the world, or that it has to verify and complete cognition of the world. 
If it is said to-day that it has to supplement it, seeing that it steps in where knowledge 
^ulsi modesty has extorted the expression, but the same thing is still mennt. 



24 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

ceived from Augustine, made excellent use of experience, and 
Scotism and Nominalism in particular are partly based on the 
empiric method, though as compared with the deductive, Duns 
may have found fault with this method as confused. What is 
of importance here is only this, that the observation of the 
external world was extremely imperfect, that, in a word, natural 
science, and the science of history did not exist, the reason being 
that men knew how to observe spirit, but not how to observe 
things of sense.^ But least of all must Scholasticism be re- 
proached with treating " artificial/* ** fabricated " problems. On 
its premises they were not artificial, and if they were boldly 
wrought out, it was only a proof of scientific energy. 

The Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, then, was simply 
science^ and it is merely perpetuating an unwarranted mistrust 
when it is thought that this part of the general history of science 
may be designated by a special name.^ As if science in general 
had not its stages, as if the mediaeval stage was distinguished 
from the rest by its unparalleled and culpable obscurity ! On 

^ Yet even this does not apply to the whole of Scholasticism. Especially in its 
later period, it pointed also to the book of nature. 

2 Kaufmann remarks correctly, p. 5 : " There still attaches to the term Scholasti- 
cism something of the hatied and contempt which the Humanists poured upon it." 
This hostile spirit is, no doubt, intelligible, inasmuch as Scholasticism still threatens 
our present-day science. Yet in more recent years a complete change of judgment 
has appeared, which comes to the help of the Pope in his renewed recommendations 
of Sl Thomas. Indeed, in the effort to be just, the once disparaged Scholasticism 
is beginning to be extravagantly belauded, as is shown by the pronouncement of a 
very celebrated jurist. With this praise the circumstance may also have some con- 
nection, that the Schoolmen are now being read again, and readers find to their 
surprise that they are not so irrational as had been believed. The strongest contribu- 
tion to the glorification of Thomas has been furnished by Otto Willmann in the 
second volume of his " Gesch. des Idealismus " (1896). Here Idealism and Thomism 
(of the strictest type) are simply placed on a level. Nominalism is the corrupt tree, 
which can bear no good fruit, and is to be regarded, moreover, merely as an episode, 
as a nubicula ; for since its rising, the sun of the Thomist Realism has been always in 
the heavens, and has given warmth to every century. The real enemy of Thomas 
and of Idealism is Kantianism, which has slowly prepared itself, that, on its assuming 
its perfect form, it may forthwith be assailed and overthrown by the true Idealism. 
Protestantism is viewed as the continuation of monistic Mysticism (!), because it (v. 
the strict determinism) does not take account of the causae secundac. So Thomism 
alone, sans phrase, is the saviour of the holy things of humanity ! Augustinianism at 
the same time still finds recognition here, but yet it is still no completed system ; it 
only represents the way to the right one. 



CHAP. I.] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 2$ 

the contrary, it may rather be said that Scholasticism furnishes 
a unique and luminous example of the fact that thought finds 
its way even under the most adverse conditions, and that even 
the gravest prejudices that weigh it down are not heavy enough 
to quench its life. The science of the Middle Ages gives 
practical proof of eagerness in thinking, and exhibits an energy 
in subjecting all that is real and valuable to thought, to which 
We can find, perhaps, no parallel in any other age. ^ 

Hence it is useless to direct one's ingenuity to answering the 
question as to what iind of science presents itself in Scholasti- 
cism ; we have simply rather to inquire into the conditions under 
which scientific thought was placed at that time. Not equally 
useless, but vaguely treated, is the academic question, much 
discussed and marked by confusion and wearisomeness, with 
reggrd to the relation of Scholasticism to Mysticism.^ If by 
Scholasticism there is understood (though this is arbitrary) " the 
hand-maid of hierarchism," or, with sudden change of front, the 
** construction of systems without concern for the needs of the 
inner life," or the " rationalistic craving for proof," and if Mysti- 
cism is then placed alongside as the free pectoral theology, then 
the most beautiful contrasts can be drawn — Hagar and Sarah, 
Martha and Mary. But with little trouble Scholasticism and 
Mysticism can, on the other hand, be resolved into each other, 
and a daring dialectic performance can be carried on with these 
terms, which does honour to the acuteness of the author, but 
which has only the disadvantage that one is as wise after, as 
before, the definitions have been given. The thing to be dealt 
with here is simple. Scholasticism is science, applied to religion, 
and — at least, till the time when it underwent self-disintegration 
-^ience setting out from the axiom, that all things are to be 
understood from theology^ that all things therefore must be 

^ We may «y, indeed, with the poet about that age : ** Ever>'thing now aims at 
^thoming man from within and from without ; truth, where hast thou an escape from 
the wUd chase ? " 

' On Mysticism, sec the works which Karl Miiller has cited in his krit. Uebcniicht 
(Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. VII., p. 102 ff.). Above all the numerous works of Dcnifle 
«nd Prefer (Gesch. der deutschen Mystik I., II.) have to be consulted; as also 
Girith, Die deutsche Mystik im Piedigerorden, 1861. For the earlier Mysticism, cf. 
tbe monographs on Anselm, Bernard, and the Victorinians. 



26 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. l 

traced back to tfuology. This axiom regularly presupposes 
that the thinker feels himself to be in entire dependence on 
God, that he seeks to know this dependence ever more deeply, 
and that he uses every means for the strengthening of his own 
religious life ; for only in the measure in which he finds, and 
knows himself to be, under and in God, is he made capable 
of understanding all else, since, of course, to understand things 
means nothing else than to know their relation to the One and 
All, or to the Author (/>., in both cases, to God). Fi'om this it 
follows at once that personal piety is the presupposition of science. 
But in so far as personal piety at that time was always thought 
of as contemplation of the relation of the ego to God accom- 
panied by asceticism,^ Mysticism is t/te presupposition of Scho- 
lasticism ; in other words, mediaeval science bases itself on piety, 
and on piety, too, which \s\tseM contemplation^ which lives there- 
fore in an intellectual element. From this it follows, that this 
piety itself prompts to thought ; for the strong impulse to become 
acquainted with the relation of one's own ego to God necessarily 
leads to the determination of the relation of the creation, of 
which one knows himself to be a part, to God. Now, where this 
knowledge is so pursued that insight into the relation of the 
world to God is sought for solely or chiefly with the view of 
understanding the position of one's own soul to God, and of 
inwardly growing through such understanding, we speak of 
Mystic t/uology} But where this reflex aim of the process of 
knowledge does not present itself so distinctly, where, rather, 
the knowledge of the world in its relation to God acquires a 
more independent objective interest,^ the term Scholastic theology 

1 Piety is, above all, not the hidden temper of feeling and will, from which spring 
love to one's neighbour, humility and patience, but it is growing cognition^ begotten 
of steadfast reflection on the relation of the soul to God. 

2 How largely dependent on Scholasticism the later Mystic theology in particular 
was ; or, more correctly, how identical the two were, has been shown especially by 
the works of Denifle (against Preger in the histor. polit. Blattem, 1875, p. 679 ff., 
and on Master Eckhart in the iVrchiv f, Litt.-u. K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters II. Bd.). 

3 It is only a question of difference of degree ; very correctly Karl Miiller says 
(Zeitschr, f, K.-Gesch. VII., p. 118): "The character of mediaeval piety always 
expresses itself, more or less, even in the theoretic discussions of Scholasticism, 
because among the representatives of the latter the entire half of the way of salvation 
is dominated throughout by the interests and points of view of Mysticism, this circum- 



CHAP. I ] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 2/ 

is employed. From this it appears that we have not before us 
two magnitudes that run parallel, or that, forsooth, collide with 
each other, but that Mystic theology and Scholastic theology 
are one and the same phenomenon, which only present them- 
dves in manifold gradations, according as the subjective or 
)bjective interest prevails.^ The former interest was so little 
acking even to the most distinguished Schoolmen that their 
irhole theologj'' can be unhesitatingly described as also Mystic 
hcology — for Thomas, Mysticism is the starting-point and 
iractical application of Scholasticism — and, on the other hand, 
here are theologians who are described as Mystics, but who, in 
he strength of their desire to know the world, and to understand 
1 a systematic way the Church doctrine, are not a whit behind 
he so-called Schoolmen. But in saying this the further position 
I already stated, that a specific difference between the scientific 
uans had likewise no existence. Here also it is simply a 
[uestion of shade (nuance). The view of the God in whom, 
nd from whom, all things must be understood, was given by 
he Church tradition. But in this view also subjective piety was 

tance having a connection with their monastic training and education. As soon as 
hese men come to deal in their theoretical discussions with the appropriation of 
thration, they bring along with them the presuppositions of their practical 
Mysticism." 

^ Even in Nitzsch's determination of the relationship (I.e., pp. 651 f!., 655) I 
aoDot find a clearing up, while in Thomasius-Seeberg the distinct vision of the 
Batter is completely obscured by a mass of details. Nitzsch first accentuates strongly 
the (brroalistic character of Scholasticism, then, with a view to understanding Mystic 
theology, points to its origin, the Pseudo-Dionysian doctrine, and now concludes : 
*'It is obvious that this theology of the soul, of feeling, and of direct intuition is 
fundamentally distinct from the Scholastico-dialectic theology/' But the assertion 
^ the Scholastic theology is formalistic is scarcely cum grano salis correct, as will 
iffpcar more clearly below. ' How can one call a mode of thought formalistic which 
tikef the greatest interest in relating everything to a living unity ? And if the means 
employed cannot secure the proposed end (as we think), have we therefore a right to 
Rpfoach these scholars with a merely formalistic interest in things? But, further, 
the Pleado-Dionysian theolo(!y is as much the presupposition of Scholasticism as of 
Mysticism, and that which Nitzsch calls " theology of the soul, of feeling, and of 
<SRCt intuitioo " plays in both the same part, as alpha and omega, while the Mystic 
fiieology certainly keeps manifestly to its point of departure throughout the whole 
ilphibet, the Scholastic, on the other hand, apparently forsakes it, but in the end 
(doctrine of the way of salvation) always returns to i:, thereby showing that it has 
liner really lost sight of it. 



28 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. L 

trained. The formal shaping elements were likewise everywhere 
the same. Inasmuch as the scientific means were derived en- 
tirely from the same three sources, the authoritative dogma, inner 
experience, and the traditional philosophy, any differences that 
would be more than varieties cannot be made out (a greater or 
less passing into the background of logical formalism, a pre- 
ference for inner observation over authoritative tradition ^). 

Yet it is said that great inner antagonisms entered into 
mediaeval science. Anselm and his opponents are pointed to, 
Bernard and Abelard, the German theologians of the fourteenth 
century and the Churchmen who pronounced them heretics, and 
from the contrasted positions in these cases the formula is 
framed, that here Mysticism is in conflict with ScholasticisnL 
Differences certainly there are here; but that stock controversial 
term throws a very uncertain light on them. Above all, the 
phenomena here gathered together can by no means be united 
in one group. But before we deal with them, it will be well to 
answer the main question stated above, under what conditions 
the scientific thought of the Middle Ages was placed, or, let us 
say, how it developed itself, and what were the concrete factors 
which determined it (in the way of advancing or retarding), and 
thereby gave it its peculiar stamp. From this inquiry the proper 
light will naturally be thrown upon these " antagonisms *' which 
are erroneously represented when they are described as a struggle 
of two opposing principles. 

The Middle Ages received from the ancient Church not only 
the substantially completed dogma, but also — as a living force — 
the philosophy, or say, the theology which had been employed 
in the shaping of dogma, and together with this also a treasury 
of classical literature, which had little or no connection with the 
philosophy and the dogma, but which answered to an element in 
the antique view of life in Italy and Byzantium that had never 
quite disappeared. These three things constituted the legacy of 
the old world to the new. But they already contained in them 
all the contrasts that came to view in the inner life of the Middle 
Ages, when consciousness of that inheritance had been awakened. 

^ Scholasticism shares with Mysticism the ** finis," and Mysticism uses essentially 
the same means as Scholasticbm. 



CHAP. I.] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 29 

These ** antagonisms " were as actively at work in the Greek 
Church from the days of Origen and Jerome as they afterwards 
were in the Mediaeval Church. In this sense all scientific 
developments of the West in the Middle Ages were simply a 
continuation of what the Greek Church had already partly 
passed through, and was partly still continuing to pass through 
in feeble movements. The difference consisted only in this, that 
in the West everything gradually developed itself to a higher 
d^^ee of energy ; that the Church, as the visible commonwealth 
of God on earth, impressed its stamp on all secular life, taking 
even science into closer connection with itself, giving it a higher 
flight, and at the same time requiring it by its authority to 
adopt juristic thought; and finally in this, that from Greek 
science Augustinianism was absent. 

We have remarked above that along with the substantially 
completed dogma the Middle Ages received from antiquity the 
related philosophy or theology. But this very circumstance 
introduced strain : for while this theology was certainly " related," 
yet as certainly also did it contain, as a living force, elements 
that were hostile to dogma, whether we think of Neoplatonism 
or Aristotelianism. It is well known that in the Greek Churchy 
from the fifth and sixth centuries, both schools worked upon 
dogma, and that " heresies " to the right and left were the result 
(pantheism and tritheism, spiritualistic Mysticism and rationalistic 
Criticism), and that then,from the Justinian age, the Scholasticism 
evolved itself which found the via media between the Areopagite 
and John Philoponus.' 

In the theological science of John of Damascus there presents 
itself the reconciliation of dogma with Neoplatonism and 

f Aristotelianism.^ Here the former plays the principal part in 
tbe principles, the latter in the working out ; for with the help 
of dialectic distinction one can remove all difficulties and con- 
tradictions that emerge. But the independent force of the Neopla- 
tonic and Aristotelian philosophies was not broken by the harmon- 
ising. The books in which they were contained continued to be 
read, and thus in Byzantium the strain did not cease. Mystic 

^ V. Vol. IV. p. 232 f. of this work. 
> Vol. IV. p. 264 f.; see also p. 331 ff. 



30 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

theology was further cultivated, Aristotle was studied, and 
although the acts of aggression always grew feebler, both of them 
threatened the Church with its dogma, the Church that was 
meanwhile growing more powerless in the embraces of the State. 
There were the further circumstances that memories of the 
theologically unconcerned age of antiquity had never died out, 
that a certain worldly culture, indifferent to religion, and often 
indeed degenerating into barbarism, still survived, which was 
strong enough to hinder the Eastern Church from ever making 
even an approach to the carrying out of its ideals and aims in 
secular life and secular culture. From the days of the Alex- 
andrian Theophilus monks and pious laymen might lament over 
the godlessness of the ancient literature and wish it in hell, but 
no one was able either to banish it, or to purify it, and bring it 
entirely into the service of ecclesiastical science. 

If we pass now to the Carlovingian period, i.e,, to the first 
epoch of scientific advance in the West, we find exactly the same 
•elements side by side, only with one important addition 
(Augustinianism). There is an eager endeavour to become 
acquainted with the traditional dogma and to think it out, and, 
as the Adoptian controversy shows, there is at the same time a 
surrender to entire dependence on the Greeks. In the writings of 
Boethius and Isidore there is possessed a source, rich enough for 
that period, from which the dialectic science of method may be 
learned. As the work of John Scotus shows, the Neoplatonic 
Mysticism had already become known to the West from the 
writings of Dionysius and Maximus ; besides this, however, it 
was represented in a tluistic setting, and with incomparable 
attractiveness, by Augustine. Finally, the ancient literature 
(poets and historians) was sought out, and through contact with 
Italy there arose the seductive pictures of a blithesome life that 
had never altogether vanished. 

But the forces which the West had at its command at that 
time were still too weak to admit of working independently with 
the capital that hrid been inherited. To become familiar with 
Augustine and Gregory I., to understand thechristological specula- 
tions of the Greeks, and to master the simplest rules of logic and 
imethod — that was the real task of the period. What was 



CHAP. L] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 3 1 

attempted beyond this, Scotus excepted, was a feeble renais- 
sance : indeed the union of the antique with the theological at 
the court of Charles the Great has something childish. This 
union therefore was soon dissolved again. Not for the first 
time under Louis the Pious, but as early as the last years of 
Charles I. himself, the ascetic thought of the ancient Church 
asserted its influence even in science. And so it continued to 
be afterwards ; we can observe indeed, on till the thirteenth 
century, a steady increase of aversion to the antique, while, no 
doubt, some bold spirits sought more than before to learn from 
it In theory secular studies were discarded. Ancient literature 
was regarded as a source of temptations. All science which did 
not place itself under theology, i.^r., which did not refer every- 
thing to the knowledge of God, was held to be pernicious, nay, 
to be a seduction of the devil. But as what is characteristic, in 
all fields, of the mediaeval view of the world consists in this, that 
it aims at uniting the ununitable, and requires that negation of 
the world shall be attained in the form of dominion over it, so 
we observe here also that what is rejected is again adopted. 
Ancient literature and philosophy were certainly employed as a 
formal means of culture, and with a view also to the refutation 
of pagans, Jews, and heretics, and to a fathoming of the divine 
mysteries. It was to some extent the same persons who re- 
jected them in the end, who on their slow, toilsome journey to 
the summit made use of them. And where they were different 
persons, yet there was at bottom between the two an elective 
affinity; for all thinkers who came to be influential, though 
some of them may appear to us **illuminists" (Aufklarer) and 
others traditionalists, were dominated by the same funda- 
mental thought of tracing back all things to God and under- 
standing them from Him. And when in the end the Church 
released Aristotle and allowed full use to be made of him, that 
was not done by way of yielding to outward constraint, but 
because the Church theology was now strong enough to master 
this master, and because he could furnish it with the most effectual 
help against the dangers of a bold idealism which threatened 
dogma. Though the schools, the universities, might not be 
ecclesiastical institutions in the strict sense of the term, science 



32 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

was ecclesiastical, tJuologicaL There was no lay science. The 
thought of such science was for that age equivalent to paganism 
and nihilism. 

From the Carlovingian period a chain of scientific tradition 
and schools of learning extends into the eleventh century ; ^ but 
a continuous increase of scientific activity cannot be ascertained, 
and even the greatest masters (Gerbert of Rheims) did not 
produce effects that were epoch-making. Not till the middle of 
the century was the advancement begun that was followed by 
no further declension, and the thread formed that was not again 
to break. The inner rise of the Church was unquestionably the 
determining cause of this upward movement of science, although 
we are surprised at meeting quite at the beginning with a trained 
skill in dialectic for which we had not been prepared, and which 
must have gone on developing in the dark ages (saeculum 
obscurum) in spite of their darkness. But how could the inner 
revival of the Church have continued without results for science ? 
The Church conceived itself at that time as spiritual ipovicVy as the 
power of the supersensuous life over the sensuous ; the subject 
of science was the supersensuous ; science, therefore, was chal- 
lenged by this revival ! But even the science which revels in 
the transcendental, and which readily attaches itself to revela- 
tions, cannot deny its character as science. Even where it is, 
and wishes to be, the handmaid of revelation, it will always 
embrace an element by which it offends the faith which desires 
rest ; it will exhibit a freshness and joy which to devoutness 
appears as insolence ; nay, even when it knows itself to be one 
with the Church in its starting-point and aims, it will never be 
able to deny a negative tendency, for it will always be justified 
in finding that the principles of the Church suffer deterioration 
in the concrete expressions of life, and are disfigured by super- 
stition. 

In the dazzling light in which Reuter, the marvellous master 
of that literature, has presented the conflicts between young 
mediaeval science and the men of the Church (Berengar and 
Lanfranc, Anselm and his opponents, Abelard and Bernard), 

^ Berengar was a disciple of Fulbert of Chartres (ob. 1028) ; the latter had studied 
under Gerbert. 



CHAP. !•] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 33 

the persons engaged appear like spectral caricatures. Because 
this scholar tries to find " negative illuminism " everywhere in 
the movements, things are deprived of their proportion, and the 
common ground on which the combatants stand almost entirely 
disappears. With wonder and astonishment we see one 
Herostratus after another cross the stage, surrounded by troops 
of like-minded disciples ; the "primacy of infallible reason" is 
set up by them, after they have destroyed authority; the 
antitheses become as abrupt as cliffs, and frightful chasms open 
up. But the biographer of these heroes, so far as he does not 
charge them with hypocrisy, must himself regularly acknowledge 
in some stray turn of thought, that they stood in closest connec- 
tion with their age and with their opponents, that their enor- 
mously magnified performances were of a much more modest 
kind, and that the great illuminists were obedient sons of the 
Church. In opposition to this representation we follow out the 
hints given above, in order to elucidate and understand these 
struggles. 

In the higher rise of science three things were involved : the 
penetrating more deeply into tlie Neoplatonic-Augustinian prin- 
ciples of all theology^ the dialectic art of analysis^ and, united with 
both, a certain knowledge of the ancient classics and of the Church 
Fat/urs. As regards those principles, it was the spirit of the 
so^alled Platonic Realism that prevailed. By means of it, as it 
had been derived from Augustine and from dogma itself, and 
from a hundred little sources also, dogma — but the world, too, as 
well — came to be understood, and all things came to be known 
from and in God. Till the beginning of the twelfth century 
this Platonic Realism, with its spiritualistic sublimating tendency 
and its allegorical method, reigned pretty much unbroken. It 
reigned all the more securely, the less a conception of it had as 
yet been consciously formed (as a theory of knowledge).^ It 

1 TQl far on in the twelfth century the scholars were not first philosophers and then 
dieologians ; they possessed as yet no philosophic system at all ; their philosophy 
Biher was quite essentially dialectic art ; see Deutsch, Abxlard, p. 96 : **The re- 
lation of philosophy to theology in the initial period of Scholasticism was essentially 
difierent from what it was at its maturity. In the earlier period a proper philosophic 
qstem, a view of the world developed on different sides, had as yet no existence. 
Only logic was known with tome completeness . . . but, as a distinct discipline^ 

C 



34 HISTORY OF DOGMA- [CHAP. I. 

was peculiar to it that it set out from faith, and then made 
itself master of dogma in the way in which dogma had formerly 
arisen (" credo ut intelligam " — this position of Augustine was 
not merely reasserted by Anselm, but was willingly assented to 
by all Church thinkers of the period). But it was, further, 
peculiar to it tftat it took a flight beyond dogma. This had 
occurred in Greek Mysticism as well as with Augustine, and it 
repeated itself, without the danger being observed, from the 
eleventh century (and just, too, among the " most pious " philo- 
sophers). Here lay the first antagonism. As one got to under* 
stand dogma by the help of the same means by which it had 
arisen, that idea of the immanence of God, of all things existii^ 
in God, asserted itself, before which the historical, and dogma 
itself, threatened to vanish, i>., were viewed as the final stage 
needing sublimation. So Origen thought, so also had Augustine 
felt, and had expressed it at the outskirts of his speculation,^ so 
was it taught by the Greek Mystics.* From this point, as by a 
circuit, a complete rehabilitation of reason could take place. 
After getting its dismissal at the beginning — revelation decides 
and authority — reason was now the means for removing out of 
the way whatever hindered the thought of the absoluteness, the 
immutability and immanence of God. It neutralised miracle, in 
order to give expression to the strict uniformity of the operation 

metaphysic did not yet exist for the philosophers of that period. What they had of 
it consisted in single propositions, partly Platonic, partly Aristotelian. , . . Only 
when the Aristotelian writings became known in the second half of the twelfth 
century did the West learn to know a real philosophic system." 

1 See Vol. v., p. 125 ff. 

s Hence even in the question about the universals, which was already dealt with at 
that time on the basis of passages from Porphyry and Boethius, the treatment was 
almost entirely realistic : general notions exist in and of themselves, or they exist in 
things as their real essence (though very different turns of thought were possible here 
in matters of detail ; see Prantl, Gesch. der Logik, II., p. 118 fi.). Certainly there 
were already to be found also in this period representatives of Nominalism, accoiding 
to which general notions are intellectus, or, say, only voces ; indeed, it probably always 
existed side by side with Realism ; but theology still treated it with indifference. 
When the Nominalist Roscellin, the teacher of Abelard, applied the Nominalist view 
to the doctrine of the Trinity, he was resisted by Anselm (v. Deutsch, p. 100 t). 
The latter had no doubt that those who held the universales substantias to be mere 
voces, must err from the Christian faith, and were heretics. But how did it stand 
with those who logically applied the substantiality of general notions ? 



CHAP. I.] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 35 

of the All-One ; it neutralised even the history of salvation, and 
history in general, or transformed it into the circulating^ course 
of the operative Being that is, was, and shall be ; it neutralised, 
finally, the creature. The " illuminist " of the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries would still have to be found who did not play 
his " illuminist " part under the influence of this mysticism, who 
did not likewise take the " credo ut intelligam " as his starting- 
point Though, like Berengar, he might compare the literally 
understood Jewish law with the laws of the Romans, Athenians, 
and Spartans in order to give the palm to the latter, though 
like Abelard, he might unite into one the history of salvation 
and general history in the " philosophy of religion on a historic 
basis " — this was still done on the understanding that there was 
to be absolute validity obtained for all that the Church offered 
of material content, by means of sublimating (allegory) ; it was 
done in the name of the conception of God and of the theology 
which prevailed also among the opponents, so far as they 
thought at all, and these latter started back before conclusions 
which Justin, Origen, and the great group of Greek and Latin 
Fathers had long before drawn.^ So it was not that principle 
stood opposed to principle, but the amount of application was 
disputed * — unless we should have to regard as the real principle 

1 The inquiry would be interesting and important that would lead us to determine 
wheihei, and through what channels, the older Pre-Jcromic Church literature in- 
fluenced Scholasticism ; e.g.^ are the agreements of Abelard with Justin and Origen 
accidental, or only indirect, or direct? That the Shepherd of Hermas and the 
Didache continued to have influence admits of proof. Contradictions within tradi- 
.tion, between the older and the later, and again between tradition (the sacred canons) 
and Scripture had already been discovered in tlie Gregorian period, and up to a certain 
point had been admitted (see Mirbt, Augustine, p. 3 f.) ; but AlH:lard was the first 
to emphasise the importance of these contradictions, while on the othei h<ind, cer- 
tainly, he began to have an inkling of what his contemporaries wore far from thinking 
of^ namely, that errors promote the progress <jf truth. 

• It sorely does not require to \yc specially noted, that no teacher of importance in 

thu period drew all the conclusions of Platonic Realism (as little as Augustine did). 

Hiey lay only on the horizon of their view, and were touched on in passages here and 

there. Till Abelard taught him better, William of Champeaux, it is true, seems to 

have asserted the full immanence of the generic notion, conceived of substantially, in 

[ cvcr^ individual, a view which must necessarily have led to the doctrine of the o»u 

ktent substance, and of the negating of all that is individual as mere semblance or 

mere contingency. This doctrine certainly lay on the outskirts of the view then taken 



36 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. L 

of mediaeval ecclesiastical theology, lack of thought, or blind sur- 
render. But that was not what the Church Fathers taught, nor was 
it what the Church itself wished when it again conceived of itself 
as spiritual power in the eleventh century. How slight really is 
the distinction between Berengar and Anselm as theologians! 
It often entirely disappears ; for how far were those represented 
as wild destroyers from drawing the conclusions in their totality^ 
and from repeating, say, the thoughts of Erigena ! They were 
not innovators, but restorers ; not a trace is to be found in them 
of negative illuminism. 

In the Greek Church Aristotelianism had made its appear- 
ance when dogma and speculation could no longer be reconciled, 
and it rendered the Church invaluable service as the Horos 
which kept the Sophia of the Mystics from plunging into the 
abyss of the primeval Father. But along with these services 
it had at the same time brought at first unpleasant gifts in addi- 
tion. While it checked unrestrained idealism, and at the same 
time set to work to make paradoxical and burdensome formulae 
tolerable by means of distinctions, it also subjected to revision 
formulas that collapsed as soon as their basis of Platonic Realism 
was taken from them. This Aristotelianism, which was so 
necessary, but of which there had been such bad experiences, 
as it appeared in John Philoponus and other Greeks, not to 
speak of the old Antiochian School, was known also to those in 
the West, through Boethius, and from other sources (in a poor 
enough form, no doubt, more directly as logical method), and 
long before had concluded (in the case of Boethius himself, ^^.),an 
irregular marriage with the Neoplatonic doctrine of principles. 
To the spirit of the West, which had more of understanding 
than of reason, and, as juristic also, constantly strove after dis- 
tinctions, this Aristotelianism was congenial. From it there 
developed " dialectic," at first, too, as scientific art. And as this 
scientific art always encourages insolence and pride where it is 
held to be the sum of all wisdom, so was it at the beginning of 
the Middle Ages, The schooled " dialecticians " of the eleventh 

of the world, and made its appearance in Mysticism as the expression of pious con- 
temptation, afterwards even as a theoretic conviction. On Abelard's having the credit 
of discarding it see below. 



CHAP, I.] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 37 

century looked proudly down on the obscurantists who did not 
understand art, while these again became concerned about the 
traditional Church doctrine,although the operations of the youth- 
ful science only seldom touched the kernel of things, unless it 
was that one here and there ventured too far with his art in re- 
gard to dogmas that stood in the centre of vision (doctrines ol 
the Trinity, of the two natures, of the Eucharist), and, anticipat- 
ing the later Nominalism, or recalling unpleasant facts in the 
history of tradition, ser\-ed up a questionable attempt at solving 
the trinitarian problem (tritheistic, Sabellian), or approached too 
near the old Adoptianism, or threw doubt on the current opinion 
about the external miracle in the Eucharist. In this way the 
first conflicts arose, which were lacking in real sharpness, how- 
ever, because the dialectic itself stood in league with Platonic 
Realism^ and at bottom did not know very often what it really 
wanted. At the same time it must not be denied, that wherever 
the understanding is brought in, it will assert its own rights and 
will overleap the limits of a purely formal activity. But it is shown, 
e.g.^ by the science of Anselm, how peacefully, under certain 
conditions, dogma, Platonic Realism, and dialectic harmonised. 
Yet in the twelfth century that came to be otherwise. In 
Abelard ^ both the critical tendency of Platonic Realism (cf. his 

^ See the excellent monc^aph of Deulsch upon him (1883), ihe best book we 
possess on the history of the theological science of that period, distinguished pre- 
eminently by calmness and caution of judgment, as compared wilh the overstiained 
biographies to the right and left. In the introduction, p. 11 f., it is denied on good 
grounds that there was a widely prevailing negative illuminism in this period. What 
widely prevailed was not negative but ecclesiastical, and what was negative (frivolity 
of course there has been in every age ; " the frivolity and avarice of the jeuncsse doree 
that vaunted itself in the apostolic chair up to the middle of the eleventh century '' : 
Sackur) or expressly heretical had no widespread influence (to what extent at the time 
of the establishment of Clugny practical and theoretical atheism, frivolous criticism cf 
the Bible, etc., prevailed among the West-Frankian lay circles is shown by Sackur). 
That to Abelard there belongs a unique position in his time, Dcutsch has grounds for 
asserting, but he is far from characterising him simply as an illuminist. If it were 
necessary to describe him as such, then it would be peculiar to Catholic religion to 
be purely acquiescent faith — but at that time at least it certainly had not yet made 
that claim ; then Justin, Origcn, and Augustine would be " crcedless free-thinkers" ; 
then Abelard himself would be a double-tongued hypocrite, for his wish was 
to be a Church theologian, believing in revelation, and yet at the same time one who 
could give account of his faith and was capable of showing it to be plain truth. 
That while this was his aim he became entangled in contradictions, that in under- 



38 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

view of history) and the critical tendency of dialectic grew 
stronger, zvithout his abandoning, however^ in tfu fundamental 
tlteseSy his relation of dependence on the Church doctrine. Abelard 
was the boldest theologian of his time, because he understood 
how to derive the critical side from all elements of tradition, and 
was really persuaded of the defectiveness just of what was held 
valid. His opponents of his day thought that the dangers of 
his science arose quite essentially from his dialectic^ and, accord- 
ingly, discredited this above everything else. In point of facti 
boldness in submitting particulars to the treatment of the 
understanding was an outstanding feature in Abelard ; the 
understanding, too, when once released, asserted its own rights, 
frequently overleapt the boundaries theoretically recognised, 
scorned authority, and proclaimed, with the support of a certain 
knowledge of ancient history, the eternal right of reasonable 
thought as the highest court of appeal. But that the most 
dangerous theses of the restless scholar sprang from Platonic 
(Augustinian) Realism, />., from the fundamental view that was 
adhered to by one's self, was not observed. In principle Abelard 
certainly moderated this view by means of his critico-dialectic 
reflections. He was no more a representative of thorough-going 
Realism. He was rather the first to introduce into epistemology 
a kind of conceptualism,^ to break through the strict doctrine of 
immanence, and, by beginning to restore independence to the 
creature, to begin also to emancipate the conception of God 
itself from pantheism. For Abelard, the dialectic art ceases to 
be mere art ; it begins to become a material principle, and to 
correct the traditional (Neoplatonic- Augustinian) doctrines of 
the first and last things. The paradox in AbelarcTs position 
consists in this^ that on the one hand in contemplating history he 

taking to commend religion to the understanding he frequently had more regard to 
the judge than to the client, was certainly not peculiar to him as a theologian! For 
ascertaining the theology of Abelard the sentences of his disciple, Magister Roland 
Alexander III. (see the edition by Gictl, 1 891, and Denifle in Archiv, Vol. I., pp. 
434 ff. 603 ff.) may be consulted. 

^ How his theory of knowledge is to be understood is a disputed point among 
scholars (v. Deutsch, p. 104 ff.). It is certain that he held a sceptical attitude 
towards Platonic Realism, that he rejected it indeed, without however passing over 
to Nominalism. 



CHAP. L] the revival OF SCIENCE. 39 

drew certain conclusions from the Mystic doctrine of God (cf. J ustin, 
Origen, but also Augustine himself) more confidently than his 
contemporaries^ while^ on the other hand^ he allowed sober thought 
to Itave a material influence on the view taken of ground principles. 
His opponents saw in him only the negative theologian. 
This negative theologian really laid the foundation for the 
classical structure of tncdiceval conservative theology} For 

iThis seems paradoxical, and certainly other things come more prominently to 
▼iew in Abelard at first : his genuine, unquenchable scientific ardour, his sense for the 
natural (sound human understanding), his ambitious striving, not devoid of vanity, 
his dialectic acuteness, his critical spirit, finally, the conviction animating him that 
the ratio has its own field of play, and that there are many questions on which it first, 
and it alone, must be heard (on his learning, which has often l)een over-rated, see 
Dentsch, p. 53 ff.). But on the other hand the following factors in his mode of 
teaching are to be noted, which obtained quite a positive im|K>rtance for the time 
that followed (while we pass over what is an understood matter, viz., that even by 
him all knowledge was ultimately traced up to the revelation of (>od) : (i) The man 
charged with ''rationalism" has no great confidence in the capabilities of the human 
power of knowledge, and openly expressed this, in opposition to the self-assurance of 
the dialecticians and mystics ; he did not possess it, but pointed to revelation, because 
he (2) did not regard thought and being as identical, but took up a criti co-sceptical 
attitude towards the reigning Realism, such as was just required for the defence 
of the Church doctrine — as was taught by the time that followed. With this there is 
connected (3) that, while keeping very much on Augustine's lines in the conception 
of God, he avoided those conclusions from his conception which led at one time to 
the assumption of a rigid, unchangeable divine working (a rigid order of nature), at 
another time to an unlimited arbitrariness on God*s }mrL This he effected by bringing 
in again (with Origen, partly against Augustine) very strongly though not at every 
point, the thought of the ethically determined character of the divine action, and of 
the limitation of the diWne power by the notion of purpose (and so by what actually 
happens). With this he also drew a sharp distinction between God and the creature, and 
asserted the independence of the latter, corrected thereby the questionable Mystic 
conception of God, and prepared the way for the conception of God held by the great 
Schoolmen. His opponents, on the other hand, such as Hugo (and afterwards also 
the Lombard) adhered to that conception of God which afterwards proved more con- 
venient in defending any kind of Church doctrine; but there is no question that 
Abelaid was really the more positive. If he has nevertheless t>cen classed with 
Spinoza, that only proves that there has been ignorance of the notion of God which 
ebewbere prevailed in his time among Church theologians, and that just that side in 
Abelard's notion of (3od has been emphasised which was not peculiar to him, for he 
sought to unite the standpoints of immanence and transcendence, while his opponents 
assailed him from the standpoint of the '* Spinozist" notion of God. (4) As with the 
doctrine of God so is it with all the other doctrines of the faith : here Abelard always 
set out from Augustine (see Deutsch's account), keeps essentially to his formulations, 
but, with more courage and confidence than the great master, fettered by his 
Neoplatonism, strives to free theology and the objects of faith from the embraces of a 



40 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

the Church dogma could not be held by the thinking 
mind under the entire domination of the Mystic Neopla- 
tonic theology. Although it was by this theology that 
it had been chiefly elaborated, yet the Church had always re- 
served to itself the supra-mundane God and the independence 
of the creature, and had formed a set of dogmas which Platonism 
could only sublimate, but could not justify as the final expres- 
sion of the matter itself. The Church needed, therefore, the 

Mysticism which is ultimately philosophy of nature. The ethical interest, the 
assurance that what answers to the moral law is also the holy and good before and 
for God, dominates Abelard (hence also his special interest in moral pliilosophy), and 
so far as this interest corrected the Mystical schemeof Christian doctrine in the thirteenth 
century, Abelard must be thought of as the pioneer. But if in this sense it may be said 
that Abelard laid the foundation for the great structures of Scholasticism in the thirteenth 
century — not only because he was the teacher of the Lombard, nor only because he 
was the acutest thinker of the period, but because he wcu the first to cUtempt that 
amalgamation of the immanence and transcendence doctrines ^ and taught that lower 
estimation of the principles of knowledge, which became the presuppositions of 
ecclesiastical systems — yet it cannot be denied that the following age did not attach 
itself directly to him. What he found independently the following age learned from 
Aristotle, who became more and more known to it from the second half of the twelfth 
century ; it learned it only indirectly, or not at all, from Abelard. But that cannot 
diminish his fame. He was the first to show how all Church doctrines can and must 
be so treated that iht principles of morality (the moral law) shall have as much justice 
done to them in the system as the fundamental thoughts of theological speculation ott 
nature. That he did not solve this problem no one will make the ground of a 
reproach, for it is insoluble. But that it must be set down as the task of all 
ecclesiastical science — so long as this science at all declares that its ideal is that of 
knowing the world — is quite obvious. The contemporaries of Abelard were not 
willing to learn enough from him, and that, as a rule, determines the amount of 
influence that belongs to a teacher. They felt repelled (i) by the still novel form of 
the science in general ; (2) by many propositions of Abelard, which were afterwards 
found to be tolerable— indeed to be the only correct ones ; (3) by many individual 
negative, or critical judgments, both in regard to history and the validity of opinion 
prevailing at the time, and in regard to particular ecclesiastical doctrines, of which 
his defensive presentation was felt to be questionable (Sabellianism in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, yet see Augustine ; strong inner variance in the Christology, which thus 
approached Nestorianism, yet see likewise Augustine). (4) It must not be denied 
that Abelard himself injured the influence of his doctrines by many contradictions and 
by the immaturity of his systcmatising. But how much could have been learned from 
him ; compare only his admirable discussions of love, reconciliation, and the Church! 
The Church had no genius between Augustine and Luther ; but among the men of 
second rank, Abelard deserves to be named. Karl MUller (Abhandl. f. Weizsacker 
1892, pp. 308 f., 319 f.) has strongly emphasised the importance of Abelard for the 
ways of stating problems and for the positive views of the following period. 



CHAP. L] the revival OF SCIENCE. 4 1 

help of dialectics (of sober intelligence, and of juristic acuteness 
directed to the given formulae) and of a lowering of the lofty 
flight of speculation, and this help Aristotelianism alone could 
afford it, /.^., the Aristotelianism, which was then understood as 
such, and which was then exercising its influence, as the view 
of things according to which it is held — not that the phenomenal 
and creaturely are the form transitorily expressing the divine — 
but that the supernatural God, as Creator in the proper sense of 
the word, has created the creature and endowed it with inde- 
pendence. It needed the help of Aristotelianism to defend a 
set of dogmas in the form in which they were already estab- 
lished.^ But still more was the " Aristotelianism " to do for 
it Reason will never ultimately make a compact with 
authority, but the understanding will. Whoever has entered 
into the spirit of the All-One and embraces the doctrine of 
immanence, will feel himself to be as " God," and will therefore 
reject all authority, of whatever kind it be. Whoever, on the 
other hand, feels his independence, side by side with other forms 
of independence, will become certain of his dependence also. 
He will no longer take part in the dialectic performance of 
exchanging his estimate of himself as the perfect nothing (as an 
individual) for an estimate of himself as the perfect being (as 
spirit) ; but while within certain limits, and perhaps with great 

1 Very correctly v, Eicken I.e. p. 602 : "The importance which Plato and Aristotle 
acquired in mediaeval philosophy was really in the inverse relation to the position 
which the two had taken up in the history of the development of Greek philosophy. 
The Platonic philosophy had placed the substance of things in the general ideas, and 
had deduced from this assumption the transcendence of the latter, and especially of 
the highest idea, that is, the idea of God. But the extreme Realism of the Middle 
Ages adopted the Platonic doctrine of ideas, not to derive from it the transcendence 
of the supreme idea, but to derive rather the harmonious co-existence of all things in 
the supreme idea, and just with this aim before it it arrived at that doctrine of God 
which bore a pantheistic character, as compared with the strict transcendence of the 
Church doctrine. On the other hand the Aristotelian philosophy had asserted the 
reality of the general ideas in the individuals, with the view of refuting Plato's trans- 
cendent doctrine of ideas. The Aristotelian Realism, however, attached itself to the 
Aristotelian doctrine, in order that, by guarding the substantial character of the 
individuals, it might prove their extra-divine subsistence, and accordingly also the 
divine transcendence that harmonised with the Church doctrine. This view, which 
quite inverted the historical and Ic^cal relation of the Platonic and Aristotelian 
philosophies, was maintained till the close of the Middle Ages." 



42 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

tenacity, he will embrace a rational mode of view, he will, in 
that which lies beyond these limits, be ready to recognise 
authorities. 

Yet for the great inaugurator of Mediaeval Scholasticism (for 
Anselm everything is still naive) — for Abelard, the elements 
were still vaguely Intermingled. He set down already as force 
all that, in the time following, the period when Scholasticism 
flourished, was conceived of as mutually limiting potencies, or 
that then became differentiated as distinct tendencies. His 
contemporaries had as yet no presentiment, that an element in 
him which they specially censured would yet become the means 
of saving the Church doctrine. Orthodoxy and the Platonic 
Realism were still in closest union. The French Mystics de- 
clared the efforts of the " dialecticians " heretical ; Aristotle was 
hated. When the great disciple of Abelard, Petrus Lombardus, 
published his Sentences, and in them fittingly placed the learn- 
ing of his master at the service of the Church theology — as yet 
the Middle Ages had not possessed a compendium for the study 
of theology^ — much would not have been required for even this 
book to be set aside on suspicion. No doubt, this work, be- 
cause, from the patristic tradition being uncertain, it still 
frequently adds opinion to opinion, bears the stamp of a freedom 
which was afterwards lost. But the mere fact that it became 
the authoritative compendium of the thirteenth century is a 
proof that on the part of the Church free inquiry, dialectic in- 
vestigation, and Aristotelian philosophy were now tolerated, not 
because inward freedom had increased, but because the faculty 
had grown for making friends with these forces, and because 
there began to be observed what the Aristotelian method and 
mode of thought could do for dogma. In the second half of 
the twelfth century the turn round of things was already pre- 
paring itself. The " pious " theologians (the Mystics), so far as 
they gave themselves up to the work of expounding and estab- 
lishing dogma, were forced to see that by means of thorough- 

1 Only since Abelard's times were there somewhat more comprehensive statements 
of Christian doctrine, which, besides, were still in many respects different. He him- 
self and Hugo of St. Victor took the lead in producing them ; see Abelard's ** Intro- 
ductio " ; faith, love, the sacraments as subjects of dogmatic. 



CHAP. I.] THE REVIVAL OF SCIENCE. 43 

going Realism contemplation might be enriched, but the 
objective doctrine could not be defended. The coalition of 
naive faith on authority with a Mysticism that, in its ultimate 
ground, was not without danger, came to an end. Church faith, 
Mysticism, and Aristotelian science formed a close alliance. On 
the other hand, the dialecticians, in the degree in which they 
passed from the Aristotelian formalism to Aristotle's doctrine 
of principles (perhaps the increasing knowledge of this philo- 
sophy contributed most to this), lost that audacity which had 
once given so much offence, and which, certainly, had often 
been only a sign of playing with empty forms. No doubt in 
connection with this many a fresh piece of knowledge came to 
be lost^ One who has much to carry gets more anxious, and 
moves more slowly, than one who marches under an easy 
burden. To this there came to be added, that from decade to 
decade the authority of the Church grew stronger. Though 
there was a growth also of opposition, which forced to anxious 
reflection (Mohammedans, Jews, heretics, knowledge of the 
ancient classics),^ at the end of the twelfth century the Church 
outshone all else with its lustre. Its rights in respect of life and 
doctrine became the worthiest subject of investigation and ex- 
position. Into this task blended the other, of referring all 
things to God and construing the knowledge of the world as 
theology. Tlu theology of the ecclesiastical facts pressed itself on 
the tlieology of speculation. Under what other auspices could 
this great structure be erected than under those of that 
Aristotelian Realism^ which was at bottom a dialectic between 
the Platonic Realism and Nominalism, and which was repre* 
sented as capable of uniting immanence and transcendence, 
history and miracle, the immutability of God and mutability, 
Idealism and Realism, reason and authority ? Thus it was only 

1 In the writings of the earlier Schoolmen, ».^., of Abelard chiefly, there are not a 
few thoughts that were directly fitted either to enrich or to modify dogma. But at 
that time the Church accepted nothing from the Schoolmen, and when it was prepared 
to have the doctiine interpreted to it by them, these men had no longer the freedom 
and boldness to say anything new to the Church. 

s What importance for Abelard the discussion with the Jew and the philosopher had 
may be learned from the *' Dialogue" (v. Deutsch, p. 433 ff., against Reuter I., pp. 
198-221.) 



44 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

in the thirteenth century that there made its appearance the 
theology adequate to the Church and its dogma, and no longer 
viewed with suspicion,^ after a new wave of piety (the Mendicant 
Orders) had imparted to it the highest measure of power of 
which the Catholic religion is at all capable. The fear of the 
Lord was also the beginning of this new wisdom. In form and 
contents, in its systematic method, and in the exhaustive fulness 
of its material, it is related to the theology of the twelfth century 
as, we might say, Origen was related to Clement of Alexandria. 
This is more than a comparison, for the course of events really 
repeated itself. Clement, the inaugurator, the bolder spirit, the 
less "enlightened," who does not yet know that the full 
authority of the Catholic Church is against him ; Origen, the 
man of system, more comprehensive, but at the same time more 
closely tied to the Church and its doctrine. The same relation 
obtained between the theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries. (Compare, e,g,^ the " aggregating " character of the 
Sentences of Robert Pulleyn [Deutsch, p. 6 f ] with the Stro- 
mateis of Clement, and the great " Sums " of the thirteenth 
century with Origen's De principiis.) In the following chapter 
we shall take up the thread here again. If we direct no further 
attention here to the Lombard, and especially to Hugo, the 
somewhat earlier, and, in respect of matter^ the most influential 
theologian of the twelfth century (" a second Augustine '*), the 
fact may serve as an excuse that the importance which the two 
obtained for the history of dogma appeared only at the great 
Lateran Council, and in the theologians of the thirteenth 
century. On Hugo's Sentences see Denifle in the Archiv f. 
L-u. K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters III., p. 634 AT. 

^ The diminishing distrust of theology in contra-distinction to the former period is 
also to be explained from the circumstance that the general average of culture among 
the higher clergy became higher. The theologians of the thirteenth century were no 
longer confronted with so much unreason as the "dialecticians" of the eleventh 
century had to contend with in the wide development of the Church. 



CHAP. I.] ELABORATION OF DOGMA. 45 



4. Elaboration of Dogfna. 

The theological conflicts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 
as they were fought out between the dialecticians and their 
opponents, do not belong to the history of dogma. This 
science has to confine itself to showing what position dogma 
asserted in connection with the revival and the crises of theology^ 
what enrichments it received, and how far the Scholastic 
activity (or the theological systematising) already influenced it 
As to the first of these questions, the statement may be quite 
brief: dogma, as it was fixed by the Councils, as it had been 
described by Augustine and Gregory I.,^ was the presupposition 
of all theological thought, and was held inviolate. Isolated ex- 
ceptions were without any importance. The dialectic experi- 
ments on dogma were always based on the traditional view of 
it As regards the third question, an influence on dogma of 
Scholastic activity and systematic theology can already be 
pointed to in the twelfth century ; but the influence was still so 
much in its beginnings that it is better to treat it first in con- 
nection with the thirteenth century.^ And so there remains 
only the question as to the " enrichments.*' Strictly speaking, 
this question also would have to be answered in the negative,* 
were it not that in the Berengarian controversy a movement 
presents itself, in which a dogma that had still always been the 
subject of dispute, attained a relatively complete form, and had 
not Anselm set up a doctrine of satisfaction, which, indeed, was 
a product of purely private work, and found few adherents, too, 
in the period that followed, but which brought before the 
Church a dogmatic problem that was hitherto unsolved, nay, 

1 So far as there was at all a single authoritative book here, it was Augustine's 
Enchiridion. But it is characteristic that Abelard, in his systematic work, already 
added the Sacraments to faith and love. 

* The doctrine of the sacraments is chiefly thought of here. 

' Almost everything that Bach has set forth in the second volume of his work on 
the history of dogma in the Middle Ages, including the ** history of Adoptianism in 
the twelfth century" and the "systematic polemic against the dialecticians" (p. 
390 ff. ; Gerhoch against the German Adoptians, p. 475 ff.), belongs simply to the 
history of theology, and has no significance for the history of dogma. 



46 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

had scarcely ever been touched as yet, but which was not again 
to pass out of view. In what follows, therefore, we have to 
treat of these two movements. 

A, T/te Berengarian Controversy. 

Besides its dogmatic, this controversy^ has a philosophic^ 
interest, and an interest also in connection with Church politics.* 
The last of these interests may be left quite out of view here ; 
the second is closely connected with the first From the place 
which the dogma of the Eucharist held in the theory and 
practice of the Church, the criticism of it was a criticism of the 
reigning Church doctrine as a whole. When the youthful 
science, represented and led by Berengar of Tours, began at 
this point, charged the accepted view with error, and applied 
the scientific doctrine of method to the dogma of the Eucharist, 
expression was given to the thought, that there may not be a 
resting satisfied with mere Church tradition, with what is held 
as valid to-day. But this thought was not expressed in the 
name of a negative "illuminism,"* but, on the contrary rather, 
that the true tradition of the Church might be delivered from 
the embraces of a bad routine, that the spirit of the doctrine 

1 Besides Lessing's well-known work and Vischer, De sacra coena adv. Lanfrancum 
lib. posterior, 1834; also the Acts of the Roman Council (Mansi XIX., p. 761 ff.), 
see Sudendorf, Berengarius, 1850; Schnitzer, Berengar v. Tours, sein Leben u. s. 
Lehre, 1890; Bach I., pp. 364-451 ; Reuter I., p. 91 ff., Dieckhoff, Die Abend- 
mahlslehre im Reform. -Zcitalter I., p. 44 ff. 

^Here, for the first time, the categories "subjectnm," "quod in subjecto," **de 
subjccto," the distinction of "esse" from "secundum quod esse," in short, the 
dialectic manipulations of the notion of substance (according to Porphyry, Boethius, 
etc.) were applied to a dogma in the West. 

3 The outward political side of the controversy has been thoroughly treated by 
Schwane (Studien zur Gesch. des 2. Abendmahlsstreits, 1887, see Loofs, Gott. Gel.- 
Anz., 1888, No. 15), who follows Sudendorf. On the antagonism to Berengar, see 
the accounts of Schnitzer, I.e. p. 246 ff. 

* Renter's judgment is, I., p. 97 : "Thus the second controversy on the Eucharist 
became what the first was not, a struggle as to the supreme criteria of religious truth, 
a conflict of the tendency of negative * illuminism,* directly with the authoritative 
ecclesiasticism of the time, indirectly with the Christianity of positive revelation.'* 
This is to me utterly unintelligible. Even the most deeply convinced Romis'i 
theologian will hesitate to endorse this opinion. 



CHAP. L] the BERENGARIAN CONTROVERSY. 47 

might be protected against a coarse and superstitious realism, 
that the XoyiKtj Xarpela (reasonable service) might be main- 
tained against a barbarian craving for mysteries, and that the 
mystery of faith might not be profaned. But combined with 
this interest, which was by no means merely pretended, there 
was the pleasure in thinking, and the daring reliance on 
dialectics as on " reason " in general. As theologians, Berengar 
and his followers were Augustinians, but, at the same time, 
Berengar had an enjoyment in criticism as such, and a con- 
fidence in "science," that were not Augustinian. 

Berengar, Director of the Cathedral School in Tours, from 
about 1040 Archdeacon in Angers (ob. 1088), had instituted 
studies on the doctrine of the Eucharist, searched through the 
Church Fathers, occupied himself with the first Eucharist con- 
troversy, and rejected ^ the doctrine of Paschasius, long before a 
controversy developed itself. In the doctrine as it prevailed at 
the time he saw apostacy from the Church Fathers and unreason ; 
for he saw in it only the view, that after the consecration bread 
and wine have disappeared, and in place of them there exist the 
real flesh and blood of Christ in so sensibly palpable a form that 
they are present as pieces (portions) of His bloody body. He 
was right; so the widely prevailing superstition taught;^ yet 

1 See on this Reuter L, p. 95, ** Paschasius ineptus ille monachus Corbeiensis." 
Berengar is correct in seeing contradictions in Paschasius. The book of Ratramnus 
was then regarded as a work of John Scotus, and was condemned as such at Vercellf 
in 1050. 

sThe confession of faith which was forced upon him in 1059 (composed by 
Cardinal Humbert), also contained the coarse view. Even Bach I., p. 366, n. 4, de- 
clares the confession "at least objectionable." In Lanfranc de corp. et sang. dom. 2 
(Migne CL.) the words occur : "panem et vinum quae in altari ponuntur post conse- 
crationem non solum sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem J. Christi 
esse et sensualiter, non solum in sacramento sed et in veritate, manibus sacerdotum 
tractari et frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri." The most characteristic thing is that 
those who were quite logical declared even the word *' sacrament" to be unsatis^sictory : 
*• The Eucharist is the mystery (sacramentum) in which there is no mystery, but all 
takes place vere et sensualiter." That is the fundamental thought of Berengar's 
opponents. That this was a falling away from tradition stands beyond doubt. But 
the traditional theologians, as is well known, are most £uiatical, when to the old 
beaten track which they call tradition, or to their fancies, which, from their lack of 
understanding, they surround with the halo of the venerable, there is opposed the 
truth that has the protection of the true tradition. 



48 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. L 

Paschasius had certainly taken also a more spiritual view of the 
change, and among the authoritative churchmen of that period 
such a " conversion " was not taught by all the more prominent* 
By means of a letter to Lanfranc, Berengar himself opened the 
controversy.* We have his doctrine fully stated for us for the 
first time in his work de sacra ccena, adv. Lanfrancum (ab. 1073 I 
anything earlier is almost entirely lost). His leading idea was 
to introduce reason into the Church doctrine, or, more correctly, 
to bring to light by means of reason the reason that lies in the 
divine doctrines of the Church. Dialectics, the science which 
had always differentiated, is nowhere more in its proper place 
than where there is a question about two objects, which, in one 
respect, are one, and in another respect are different Thus the 
two-nature doctrine is very peculiarly its province ; and so also 
is the doctrine of the Eucharist, with its earthly elements and 
its heavenly gift^ Berengar showed that the doctrine of the 
bodily transmutation was absurd (" ineptia "), and went directly 
in the face of the old traditions, as w^ell as of reason, which we 
must make use of as reasonable beings created in the image of 
God.* He accordingly adopted the standpoint of Scotus 
(Ratramnus), as he understood it He taught that the words 
are to be understood tropically ; but he held this interpretation 

1 The controversy is also so uninspiring, because, as usual, the opponents exaggerated. 
Berengar proceeded as if he had only the view against him that parts of the bloody 
body of Christ are chewed by the teeth, while his adversaries asserted that according 
to him the elements were empty s>'mboIs. He had at any rate more right on his side 
in his description ; yet not only Fulbert (Bach I., p. 365), but some also who were 
later, did not think of a spatial extension of the body of Christ in the converted 
elements. 

2 See Mansi T. XIX., p. 768. 

' Of course the chief arguments of Berengar are derived from Scripture and tradition. 
To them he attaches decisive weight. The distinction that already prejudges everything, 
between the sensible, the visible, and the sacrament, the invisible — Berengar had 
made it the basis of his doctrine and the starting-point of his dialectic, as long as he 
could think — originates with Augustine. With the dialectic there mingle the be- 
ginnings of a more independent, a critical view of hislor}*. Yet Berengar meddles 
with no decree of any Council. Only, the decrees connected with his subject are 
ridiculed by him. 

4 See Vischer, p. 600: '*maximi plane cordis est, per omnia ad dialecticam con- 
fugere, quia confugere ad cam ad rationem est confugere, quo qui non confugit, cum 
secundum rationem sit factus ad imaginem dei, suum honorem reliquit nee potest 
renovari de die in diem ad imaginem dei." 



CHAP. I] THE BERENGARIAN CONTROVERSY. 49 

With much greater firmness than his predecessor, and gave it 
an exclusiveness of which his predecessor had not thought; 
Christ is spoken of under many symbols, hence the bread is also 
a symbol;^ Scripture teaches that, till His return, Christ 
remains in heaven ; ^ a piece of bread is not capable of taking 
into itself the body born of the Virgin, and yet it is a question 
about the wliole Christ ; * a destruction of the subject (the 
elements) involves the destruction of all essential attributes of 
the elements, for concretely (in concreto) these cannot be dis- 
tinguished from the subject itself (Nominalist tendency).* Yet 
the tropical view, as he did not stand by it, was not equivalent 
for Berengar to the symbolical. This latter view rather he 
explicitly rejected, in so far as he followed the old tradition, and 
recognised two things in the Eucharist, sign and sacrament. 
The elements become sacrament through consecration, and this 
implies that they now include something objectively holy. A 
" conversio " takes place ; but for Berengar this expression has 
certainly an unusual sense.^ It is meant to suggest that the 

1 Berengar compares che description of Christ as a Hon, lamb, comer-stone. 
^P. 199: "constabit, eum qui opinctur, Christi corpus cojIo devocatum adesse 
sensualiter in altari, ipsum se dejicere, quod vecnrdium est, dum confirmat se manu 
frangere, dente atterere Christi corpus, quod tamen ipsum negare non po.«sit im- 
possibile esse et incorruptibile." 

' The last point was for Berengar of the greatest weight. He always re^'ards his 
opponents as assuming that there are '* jortiunculae " of the body of Christ on the 
altar, and objects to this, (i) that it is a question of the whole body (see pp. 148, 199 
f.); (2) that the body of Christ is not something ** corruptible," which can be touched, 
broken, and bitten. Then, again, the bread is not capable of affording room for such 
a body, and then the "sensualiter" is above all objectefl to. 'I'he incorruptibility 
ajid uniqueness of the body of Christ are the presuppositions of his dialectic. A body 
so constituted cannot become sensible, and it cannot be at the same time in a thousand 
places. The expedient also of supposing a creating-anew of the body of Christ is 
effectively refuted by him ; this would involve us in the thought of two bodies. 

* Here Berengar emphasised the correct logical reflection, **quod in subjecto erat 
superejise quacunque ratione non potest corruplo subjecto" (p. 93), i.<r , when the 
substance is destroyed, the essential attributes (taste, colour, form) cannot remain 
behind ; or p. 59 : ** non potest res ulla aliquid esse, si de^^inat ipsum esse." Even 
Protestant historians will take no account of such reasons. 

It must be assumed that it rests on accommodation ; for although there answers 
to the sacrament a res sacramenii, which is created by the consecration, yet ii is 
certainly not a question of transmutation. Nor did the old tradition furnish this 
term. In substance Berengar is a correct Augu>tinian ; hence it is unnecessary to 
quote further passages. The proper expression fc^r what Berengar means would be a 

D 



50 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

elements remain what they are, but at the same time become the 
body of Christ. They become in a certain respect something 
different, /.^., there is now added to the visible a second element, 
which is real, but invisible. The consecrated elements remain 
in one respect what they are, but in another respect they become 
the sacraments, />., as the visible, temporal, and mutable subjects, 
they become the guarantees (pignora, figurae, signa) of the 
reception of the whole heavenly Christ by the believer. While 
the mouth therefore receives the " sacrament," the truly genuine 
Christian receives by discernment (" in cognitione "), and into 
his heart that which the sacramental elements represent, namely, 
Christ as food, the power of the heavenly Christ. Hence the 
enjoyment and the effect of the Eucharist are spiritual : the 
inner man (so it depends on faith, in addition to the consecra- 
tion) receives the true body of Christ, and appropriates the death 
of the crucified Christ through believing remembrance.^ 

Augustine would have had nothing to object to this doctrine 
of the Eucharist, even though some dialectic arguments and 
devices in it had surprised him. But the men of the period were 
shocked, both at the result, and partly also at the course of 
thought that led to this result At Rome and Vercelli (1050), 
in Berengar's absence, the doctrine was condemned, on the 
ground of the letter to Lanfranc. Nine years later, after it had 
become artificially mixed up in France with ecclesiastico- 
political questions, but had thereby become for the time more 
tolerable for Rome, and after its author had suffered much from 
slander and imprisonment, Berengar was compelled to subscribe 
at Rome, under Nicolas II., a formula of faith, which made it 
clear that his worst fears with regard to the tyranny of supersti- 
tion in the Church were not exaggerated.^ Having returned to 
France, he kept in retirement at first ; but subsequently he 

divine **auctio" in the elements, and so also he has expressed himself, p. 98. On 
the other hand, it is said, p. 125 : "per consecrationem altaris fiunt panis et vinum 
sacramenta religionis, non ut desinat esse quae fueranl, sed ut sint quae erant et in 
aliud commutentur." 

i**Christi corpus totum constat accipi ab inteiiore homine, fidelium corde, non 
ore" (p. 148). At the same time also a memorial feast : ** spiritualis comestio, quae 
fit in menie." 

2 V. above p. 47, note 2. 



CHAP. I.] THE BERENGARIAN CONTROVERSY. 5 1 

could have no rest. He came to the front again with his 
doctrine, for which he had influential supporters in Rome itself, 
and a new, heated literary controversy was the result During 
its course the most important writings on both sides were 
produced. Gregory VII. treated the controversy in a dilatory 
way, and with much indulgence towards Berengar, who was 
personally known to him : in all ages Rome has been clever 
enough not to be hasty in making heretics, and a Pope who, in 
ruling the world, must so often wink at things, knows also how 
to exercise patience and forbearance, especially when personal 
sympathy is not wanting.^ But in the end Gregory was com- 
pelled, in order not to shake his own authority, to force Berengar, 
at the Synod of 1079, to recognise the transmutation doctrine.^ 
For a second time Berengar outwardly submitted ; the Pope was 
satisfied with the form ; but with this the cause which the 
broken scholar represented became lost. 

The transmutation theory of Paschasius — the term transub- 
stantiation was apparently first used casually by Hildebert of 
Tours (beginning of twelfth century) in his 93rd Sermon 
(Migne CLXX I., p. 776), and therefore already existed^ — was 
further developed by the opponents of Berengar.* First, the 
mystery was conceived of still more sensuously, at least by some 
(manducatio infidelium);^ secondly, there was a beginning, 

lOn the interesting relation of Berengar to the Curia and Gregory VII., see 
Renter I., p. 116 ff., 120 flf. 

'^ The formula (in Lanfranc, c. 2) was milder than that of 1059, but yet sufficiently 
plain : '* Ego Berengarius corde credo et ore confiteor panem et vinum qugd/onun/ur 
in cUtari per mysterium sacra) orationis et verba nostri redemptoris substantmliter 
converta in verara et propriam et vivicatricem camem et sanguinem J. Christ! et 
post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi, quod natum est de virgine . . . et 
i|uod sedet ad dexteram patris . . . tton tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti 
sed in proprietate natures et veritate substantitB,'*^ 

^ In his two treatises (of date 1157) against the followers of Soterichos, in whose 
opinion the mass was not offered to the Son, hut only to the Father and Spirit, Nicolas 
oif Methone used the expression /irrairrocxcic.xrif, see Hefele V.', p. 568. These 
treatises were publishe<l by Dimitracopulos in the year 1S65 (see Reusch, Theol. Lit.- 
Blatt, 1866, No. II). 

^ Yet everything acquired settled form only in the thirteenth century : the questions 
resulting from the new doctrine are innumerable. 

'Lai^ranc, I.e. c. 20: even sinners and the unworthy receive the true body of 
Christ. Only in this respect did Lanfranc develop the doctrine beyoncl Paschasius. 



52 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

though with caution, to apply to dogma the ** science " that was 
discredited in the opponent The crude conceptions (which 
embraced the total conversion) were put aside, and an attempt 
was made to unite the older deliverances of tradition with the 
new transmutation doctrine, as also to adapt the Augustinian 
terminology, by means of dialectic distinctions, to the still 
coarsely realistic view of the object.^ The struggle of Berengar, 
therefore, did not continue altogether without fruit; but the 
fruit consisted essentially in this, that science was left quite free, 

1 There was an aiming above all at recognising the whole Christ as present in the 
host, at reconciling the Augustinian, as well as the older rich and manifold conception 
of the Eucharist as a whole, with the transmutation doctrine, at rationalising the 
relation of element to verum corpus Christi by dialectic distinctions of accident and 
substance, at reconciling the presence of Christ in heaven with the sacramental 
presence, and at not forgetting, too, in these speculations the Church as corpus 
ChristL Note here as specially important the treatise de corp. et sang. Christi 
veiitate in eucharistia, by Guitmund of Aversa (Migne CXLIX.), who certainly 
learned from Berengar. For the theories of othe^ opponents of Berengar 
(Lanfranc, Adelmann of Brixen, Hugo of Langres, Durandus of Troanne, 
Alger of Liittich, Abelard [he taught differently from Berengar, see Deutsch, 
I.e. pp. 401 f., 405 ff.], Walter of St. Victor, Honorius of Autun, etc.), see 
in llacli I., p. 382 flf. On the German theologians who occupied themselves with 
the doctrine of the Eucharist, see ibid., p. 399 ff. (the Reichersberg theologians, 
Gerhoch, Rupert of Deutz ; in the last named there is a peculiar, spiritualistic con- 
substantiation doctrine). Guitmund attributed the whole Christ to every particle, and 
thereby led on to the new view, first expressed by Anselm, that the whole Christ is 
contained in otu form (ep. IV., 107); **in acceplione sanguinis totum Christum 
rleum et hominem et in acceplione corporis similiter totum accipimlis." In this the 
dogmatic basis was laid for withholding the cup, which afterwards became the rule. 
There is interest connected with the timid attempts that were made to teach also a 
** certain " incorruptibility of the accidents of the converted substances (these terms are 
now used even by the orthodox). Yet appearance witnessed against this assumption, 
and there was not yet resolution enough to adopt the doctrine that even here the 
empirical misleads. That Lutheran theologians take sides with Berengai's op- 
ponents (Thomasius-Seeberg, p. 48 : "really religious position as opposed to the 
rationalising misinterpretation of this man," cf. Keuter), although their final argu- 
ment was the omnipotence of God, belongs to the peculiarities of the Romantic 
theology of the nineteenth century. Thomasius (p. 49) is specially delighted with 
the timid anticipations of the doctrine of the ubiquity of the substance of the body of 
the heavenly Christ in Alger (de sacram. corp. et sang, domini I., 11-16), whereby 
the difficulties which attach to the idea of the creatio of the Eucharistic body are 
to be set aside (Bach. I., p. 389 ff.) : ** Christ can be corporeally present wherever 
he wills." For the rest (see Lanfranc), there was as yet no more declared than 
that with the body exalted to the right hand of God the Eucharistic body is identical, 
and yet not identical. How necessary here, therefore, was the so much despised 
dialectic of Berengar ! 



CHAP. I.] THE BERENGARIAN CONTROVERSY. 53 

because it was gradually seen that in face of the gravity of the 
problems the simplicity of faith was powerless. At the Fourth 
Lateran Council (1215) the mediaeval doctrine of the Supper was 
solemnly framed as dogma in the famous confession of faith, 
which, previous to the Tridentine confession, was the most 
influential symbol (after the Niceno-Constantinopolitan ; see 
Mansi XXII., p. 982; Hefele V.^ p. 878 ff.; and the Corpus 
juris canonici, where the topic finds a place under X. i : de 
summa trinitate [1. i]). What is important here is (i) that 
the doctrine of the Eucharist is immediately attached to the 
confession of the Trinity and Incarnation. In this way it is 
represented even in the symbol as liaving a most intimate relation 
to these doctrines^ as, indeed, forming with them a unity ; i.e,, the 
state of things was now created that was disastrous even for the 
history of the Reformation : the real presence obtained the same 
value as the Trinity and the two-nature doctrine, so that every 
one was regarded as an ecclesiastical anarchist who called it in 
question. This valuation certainly corresponds with the develop- 
ment of the doctrine of the Eucharist, inasmuch as the Eucharist 
appears as the continuously present, earthly incorporation of the 
mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, but it robs the Gospel 
of its spiritual character. (2) Tran substantiation was now ex- 
pressly taught ; the words run : '* moreover there is one universal 
Church of the faithful, outside of which no one whatever can be 
saved, in which Jesus Christ is at once priest and sacrifice, whose 
body and blood are truly (veraciter) contained in the sacrifice 
of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine, the bread 
being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood 
by divine power, so that for the effecting of the mystery of unity 
(ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis) we receive of His what He 
received of ours (here the conjunction with the Christology is 
manifest). And this sacrament especially (hoc utique sacra- 
mentum) no one can administer but the priest who has been 
duly ordained according to the Church authority (secundum 
claves ecclesiae) which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles 
and their successors." The symbol then immediately continues : 
" But the sacrament of baptism, which is consecrated in water 
on invoking the undivided Trinity, avails for salvation both to 



54 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. L 

infants and adults, by whomsoever it is duly administered in the 
forms of the Church (in forma ecclesiae). And if after receiving 
baptism any one shall have fallen into sin, he can akvays be 
restored (reparari) through true penitence." Thus this line of 
development also is completed, and at the same time the related 
one (see Vol. V., p. 325), according to which every Christian 
must make confession of his sins before the parish priest 
(parochus). It is laid down in the twenty-first chapter : " Every 
believer, of either sex, after arriving at the years of discretion, 
must by himself (solus) faithfully confess all his sins, at least 
once a year, to his own priest, and must study to carry out to 
the best of his ability the repentance enjoined upon him, receiv- 
ing reverently, at least at Easter, the sacrament of the Eucharist." 
The novelty in the symbol — the direct attachment of the 
Eucharist dogma to the Trinity and Christology — is the most 
distinctive and boldest act of the Middle Ages. Compared with 
this immense innovation, the addition of the "filioque" weighs 
very lightly. But on the other hand, the symbol certainly shows 
also very plainly how the old dogmatic tradition still dominated 
everything, for it contains nothing of the specific Augustinian- 
Western propositions about sin, original sin, grace, and justifica- 
tion. ** Dogma," in the strict sense of the word, consists of the 
Trinity, Christology, the doctrine of the Eucharist, the doctrine 
of Baptism, and of the Sacrament of Penance. All else is at 
the most dogma of the second order. This state of things also 
was of the greatest weight for the history of the Reformation ; the 
doctrines of the Trinity, of Christ and of the Sacraments (/>., 
the doctrine of the three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance, 
Eucharist) constitute Catholic Christianity — nothing else. 

B, AnseMs Doctrine of Satisfaction^ and the Doctrines of 
A tonement of the Theologians of tlu Twelfth Century} 

Ever since the days when an attempt was made to punish, 
without decimating the Church, the great apostasy occasioned 
by the Decian persecution, the positions were held as valid, that 

1 See Baur, Lehre von der Versohnung ; Hasse, Anselm, 1853 ; Ritschl, Recht- 
fertigung und Versohnung 2 Aufl. I., p. 31 ff. 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 55 

God's mercy is unlimited, even as regards the baptised, but that 
only a satisfactio, consisting of legitimate penance (poenitentia 
legitima), can move the offended God to regard the sinner again 
with favour. Since that time these ideas had obtained the 
widest circulation,^ united themselves at a later period with 
Germanic ideas, and dominated the whole penitential system of 
the Church.* Connected with this system stood the conception 
of " merits," /.^., of such supererogatory acts as establish a claim 
to reward, when no guilt exists to be expiated. Through this 
idea a calculation of the value of particular deeds was introduced, 
and of these calculations the whole ethical system was full. 
Whether an act was obligatory, or abundans, or superabundans, 
whether, under given circumstances, it was compensatory (satis- 
factory), or meritorious, had to be established in each particular 
case, so that each one might know how his account stood with 
heaven. The Augustinian conception of prevenient grace freely 
bestowed (gratia gratis data praeveniens), which had been 
generally accepted, wrought no change on this view, but only 
made it more complicated. 

Yet neither by Gregory the Great, nor by any theologian of 
the Carlovingian period, was this view applied to the work of 
Christ. Frequent reference, it is true, was already made to the 
** copiousness of tJu value of the mystery of the passion " (pretii 
copiositas mysterii passionis ; see the fourth chapter of the 
Synod of Chiersey) ; but a theory had not been framed, because 
there was no reflection at all on the nature, the specific worth, 
and the effect of the redemption contained in the suffering and 
death of Christ The Fathers, Augustine included, had handed 
down nothing certain on this. The only view taken by the 
Greeks was that the reign of death was broken by the cross and 
resurrection of Christ, or that mankind were thereby bought off, 
or cunningly wrested, from the devil. All that they said of the 
sacrifice in the suffering was quite vague. Only Athanasius 
spoke with noteworthy clearness of the penal suffering which 
Christ took from us and laid upon Himself. But, from the days 

1 See the confidence in the unlimited mercy of God on the part of the Carlovingian 
theologians, especially Alcuin (Hauck, K.-Deutschlands 11. , p. 136 f.). 

2 See Vol. v., p. 323 if. 



5& HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

of Paul, all of them testified that Christ died for us^ and delivered 
us from the power of the devil. That was felt and proclaimed 
as the great act of redemption. Ambrose and Augustine had 
then emphasised the position that Christ is Mediator as nian^ 
and had given many instructions about particular points ; but 
^ the question wh y that Man, w ho -^^ at ffapgamo tjm^rOft/l, iVTfra^ ^ 
^obliged IQ .suffer and^dSrV, was dealt with by point ing ^ to His 
example^ or by reciting biblicarfexts about ransom, sacrifice, and 
such like, without the necessity of the death here coming clearly 
to view.^ But Augustine certainly had laid the foundation for 

a new and vigorous appr#*V>^ng;r>n r>f »||^ <^jgpifirinrn ii>f-PKrkf*c 

worky-hy^^mphasising so strongly the gravity of sin, and by 
representing the relation between God and man under the 
scheme of sin and grace. 

At this point Anselm came in.^ The in^portance gf his 

doctrine of satisfaction^ as developeoin Book II. of his "Cur 
deus homo,"^ composed as a dialogue, lies in this, that he made 
use of all the factors of the Augustinian theology, so far as they 
came into consideration here, but that at the same time he was 
the first of all to frame a tluory^ both of the necessity of the 
appearing of the God-man, and of the necessity of His death. 
This he did by making the principles of the practice of penance the 
fundamental scfieme of religion in general} The " necessity " 

1 The necessity resulted, no doubt, when the right of the devil over mankind was 
thought of. Beyond this, it may be said that we have in one respect an anticipation 
of the Anselmic representation in the sermon composed about 500 by a contemporary 
of Faustus of Reji : Why Christ redeemed mankind from the power of the devil, 
not through the use of His divine might, but by becoming man, fulfilling the law, 
suffering and dying. (Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten, 1890, pp. 202 ff. 
411 flf.). The whole view of redemption, it is true, is still given here under the 
scheme of redemption from the devil, but the mode of redemption is dominated by 
the thought that **deus est rationis atque justitise et auctor et exactor." Something 
similar is also to be found in some homilies of Faustus (see Caspari, I.e. p. 418 ff.). 

« Edit. II., by Fritzsche, 1886. 

* Cremer (die Wurzeln des Anselm'schcn Satisfactionsbegriff, in den Stud, und 
Krit. 1880, p. 7 ff.) has endeavoured to show that the fundamental thesis of Anselm's 
satisfaction theory (I. 13: '*necesse est, ut aut ablatus honor solvatur aut pcena 
sequatur." I. 1$ : " nccesse est, ul omne peccatum satisfactio aut poena 
sequatur") is of Germanic origin. The correspondence is no doubt easily proved, 
but the Roman law also knows of this alternative in the case of private offences, and 
there can be no doubt that the Church, in its ordinances of penance, had acted on 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM*S DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. $7 

was understooi-hy Anselm in the sense of the strictest reason^ 
ableness. i,e^his aim is to show that even i f w e knew nQthi»if of 
Christ, and such an On^eTTaJnever existed, reason would have 

the principle, *'aut poenitentia legitima (satisfactio (^ngrua) aut mors actema,*' 
long ere it learned to know Germanic law. In Tertullian, certainly, there still prevails 
another idea, when (de pudic. 2) he says : "omne delictum nut venia dispungit aut 
pcena " ; but the fata] turn of thought is already anticipated, when he forthwith adds : 
**vema ex casttgationey pcena ex damnatione." — Thus I had written in the first 
edition ; since then, Cremer has again described his standpoint in the Stud. u. Krit., 
1^3 (PP* 3i6'345)* I myisi adhere to the position that it is not necessary for under- 
standing Anselm to have recourse to the Germanic notion of satisfaction, since the 
material in hand, of whicii we have to take account, is quite sufficiently given in the 
prevailing practice and theory of penance. Tiiese go liack in the West to the time of 
Cyprian, or say of TeituUian (see Wirth, Der Verdienstbegriff bei Tertullian, 1892 ; 
see also Tertullian's notion of **compensalio," cf. Apolog. 50: **veniam dei com- 
pensatione sanguinis expedire"), and developed themselves everywhere in the same 
way. It may be enough to point to Sulpitius Severus (DiaL II. 10), who was 
certainly not affected by Germanic influence : **fornicatio deputatur ad pcmam^ nisi 
satisfactione purgatur. " That is surely clearly enough the Anselmic scheme. (.See other 
passages in Karl Miiller, Abhandl. f. Weizsllcker, 1892, p. 290 f. : God is satisfied 
with a lesser performance ; this appears sometimes as mutatio of, sometimes as com- 
pensatio for, the eternal penalty.) Nor is it advisable here, or in Tertullian, 
to speak of "compensating penalty" (** Ersatzstrafe ") as distinct from "com- 
pensation for injury'* ("Schadenersatz"), for these notions cannot at all be 
strictly kept apart everywhere. " The sacrifices that are well- pleasing to God are 
a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart." From this passage and similar 
ones, from the consensus gentium also, which may very well be appealed to here, and 
finally from the rule, well-known even to the Romans, as to every other nation, that 
private injuries are cancelled by indemnifications which restore to the injured party 
his honour, it is quite sufficiently explained, how in the gemitus, lamentationes, 
humiliationes, etc., there should both be recognised mortificationes temporales, and 
also something seen which changes the feeling of the angiy God and makes Him 
again gracious. That is compensation for injury as regards the honour of God 
(because voluntary self-humiliation), for in the normal relationship one is not obliged 
in such a way to testify his subjection (therefore it is also a "merit" — 1.^., something 
which God gladly sees and prizes — when in this condition one nevertheless offers 
those performances, and under certain circumstances a saint can also offer them for a 
sinner). But it can also be described as compensating penalty^ for the satisfaction, it 
is true, and even the Anselmic is no exception, is in no sense endurance of deser\'ed 
penalty, but it is a performance, which to the performer is painful and arduous. In 
Roman public law the poena is certainly the satisfactio — that has not been disputed — 
but, so far as I know, in the penitential discipline of the ancient Church the satisfactio 
was never thought of purely in the forms of Roman law (against Cremer, p. 316), but 
was always the evasion of penalty by acts which were at once (a« castigatio) com- 
pensating penalties and (as surplus exercise of lowly submission to God) compensations 
for injury. It may be that to the man of the ancient world the compensating /^/laAy 
was more distinctly present than the compensation for injury, although all public penal 



S8 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

to confess t bat m en cangaly be saved if a God-niatt-^ppears 
and di e s fo p-tfaem:* Jews and pagans must be constrained to 
acknowledge this necessity. They, and unbelieving Christians, 
must see that it is unreason to assert that God could also have 
redeemed us by another person (whether man or angel), or that 
He could have redeemed us by a mere determination of His 
will ; ^ they must perceive that the mercy of God does not suffer 
wrong through the death on the cross, and that it is not un- 
worthy of God that Christ should have stooped to abasement 
and taken upon Himself the uttermost suffering. No doubt it 
holds good that we first believe and then see.* But though the 
attempt may fail — faith, of course, would remain unshaken — we 



procedure has developed itself from compensating performancesy and the conscious- 
ness of this has never disappeared (even "poena" is originally "ransom"). But 
when Cremer asserts : "The term and conception * penance* (Husse), in the penal 
law and current language of the Romish Church, springs from the satisfactio of 
German law," that is an error which prejudices all his further exposition (see also 
Loofs, Dogmengesch.', p. 273 f.). At the same time it may be held by way of 
reservation that the transfusion of the penance discipline of the Church with Germanic 
ideas strengthened the theory, and gave a casuistic tinge and externality to the 
practice (Weregild, instead of, and in addition to, cor humiliatum and lamcntationes). 
So also the peculiar expression Anselm gives to the notion "honour" of God is 
perhaps due to Germanic influence, although one must look very closely to discover 
a shade of difference on this point between Anselm's God and the injured and wrath- 
ful God of Teriullian. Why then (according to Tertullian) is God injured by sins? 
Because the obedience is withheld which is due to His commands. When Cremer 
asserts (p. 329) that in the ancient penance discipline, the satisfactio congrua 
(" congrua" — that is, determined by the penance regulations ; the expression can be 
pointed out already in the fourth century) 'wo.i as much penalty as the mors aeterna, that 
is certainly a wondeiful statement. When, finally (p. 326), he throws on me the 
burden of proving that the Roman law, in the case of private injuries, recognises the 
alternative : " aut poena aut satisfactio," I grant that I expressed myself too strongly, 
and in a way not incapable of being misunderstood. The law, so far as it w&s publicly 
administered and codified, may no longer recognise this principle ; but a jurist like 
Tertullian shows that the scheme must have been a familiar one, and how can we 
think of the settlement of private wrongs at all otherwise than by supposing that a satis- 
factio is rendered to the injured ? 

1 Augustine already propounded the question of the absolute necessity of redemption 
by means of the incarnation and death of the Logos, but answered it in the negative. 
He saw in this means not the only, though certainly the worthiest, way. 

21. I. 

3 I. 2 : " Sicut rectus ordo exigit, ut profunda christianse fidei prius credamus, 
quam ea pnesumamus ratione discutere." 



CHAP. l] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 59 

must advance to the knowledge of what we believe, and in this 
case a perfect reasonable knojijedge is possible. 

At the outset Anselm /^jects'three ideas, ^"J ^"^ in^ll^nr^^ 
the_other§_AS-£rr9neous. Tf is not sufficient to justify redemp- 
tion through the death on the cross by emphasising the 
" conveniens," i.e., the correspondence of the person and work 
of Christ with the person and fall of Adam ; that is an aesthetic 
view, which is correct, but which proves nothing until the 
" necessarium " is established.^ It is er roneous to thinlc-that a 
man co uld h ayeLjedeemed us ; for we sEould then become the 
servants -of him who should ha ve d elivered us from eternal 
death. But in that way our <Wginal dignt^ would not be 
restored, in virtue of which we >yereiriceThe angels and servants 
of God alone.* It is erroneous, finally, to think that by redemp- 
tion legal claims of the devil upon us had to be wiped out ; for 
although by reason of our -sins we have justly come under the 
devil's power, yet the devil does not rule justly, but rather 
unjustly. He has obtained no claim upon us, and over against 
God he has absolutely no right.^ Before Anselm begins his 
process of proof, he further endeavours — the arrangement is 
extremely unskilful — to refute the objection that the suffering 
and death of a God-man, just because he is man, are without 
effectj'becausejevery man is bound to be obedient unto death. 
He rejects this view, which is only apparently supported by 
passages of Scripture that teach that the death of Christ was 
obligatory, because it was fulfilment of the divine will ; a sinless 
man, rather — and the God-man was such — was only under 
obligation to observe justitia and Veritas (righteousness and 
truth), but not to die, for death follows only upon sin.* Having 
now cleared the path for himself, he goes on to put the question 
thus : Assuming that we knew nothing whatever of the God- 

1 I. 3, 4 : " . . . Multa alia, quae studiose considerata inenarrabilem quandam 
nostrae redemptionis hoc modo procuratffi pulchritudinem (see Augustine) ostendunt 
. . . sed si non est aliquid solidum super quod sedeant, non videntur infidelibus 
sufficere." 

M.S. 

M. 6, 7- 

4 I. 8-1 o. In the 2nd Book this decisive point is repeatedly treated very fully in 

c. 10, II and i6, i8. 



60 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

man and His action, what must take place, if men, who are 
created for blessedness in the world beyond, but who can attain 
to this blessedness only as sinless^ have all become sinners? 
The most natural answer is (for it has already been said in I. 4, 
that it would not become God not to carry out His plan) : sins 
must bt.fprgiveiu_ JBut how must that be done ? What is for- 
giveness of sin? What range has it? In ordjcr to answer 
this question, we must first ask. What is sin? With this 
the development begins.^ "^ 

Every rational creature owes to God entire subjection to His 
will. That is the only honour which God demands^ He who 
pays it is righteous ; he who pays it not, sins ^in^ indeed, i^ 
nothing else than the dishonouring of God by withholdingjrom 
Him His own.* This robbery God cannot tolerate ; He must 

defend His honour. He must therefore demand that man 
restore it to Him, and, indeed, *' for the insult inflicted, that he 
restore more than he took away " ; otherwise he continues " in 
culpa " (under guilt).* Every sinner, therefore, must furnish a 
satisfaction.^ God cannot dispense with this ; for that would 

^ In the course of it (I. 16-18) the Augustinian theolo^oumenon, that the men 
destined to salvation take the place of the fallen angels, fills a large space. But it is 
in no way connecteil with the doctrine of satisfaction. Anselm differs from Augustine 
in this, that he thinks that the number of saved men is greater than that of the fallen 
angels ; from the beginning God had in view the numerus beatorum as consisting of 
angels and men. Otherwise the creation of men would be simply a consequence of 
the fall among the angers, and there would result the inconveniens that we men 
should have to rejoice over this fall. This correction of the Augustinian doctrine does 
all honour to Anselm's heart ; but as the doctrine has its point in the equally great 
number of the fallen angels and saved men, it is really cancelled by Anselm. Yet he 
was himself not quite sure of his case. See I. i8, p. 37. 

si. IX : " non est aliud peccare quam non reddere deo debitum . . . debitum est 
subjectum esse voluntite deo . . . hsec est justitia sive rectitudo voluntatis, quse 
justos facit sive rectos corde, i.e.^ voluntate, hie est solus et totus honor quern debemus 
deo . . . hunc honorem debitum qui deo non reddit, aufert deo quod suum est et 
deum exhonorat, et hoc est peccare." 

s I. II : '*non suflicit solummodo reddere quod ablatum est, sed pro contumelia 
illata plus debet reddere, quam abstulit, sicut enim qui liiedit salutem alterius, non 
sufficit si salutem restituit, nisi pro illata doloris injuria recompenset aliquid, ita qui 
honorem alicujus violat, non sufficit honorem reddere, si non secundum exhonora- 
tionis factam molestiam aliquid, quod placeat illi qnem exhonoravit, restituit. 
Hoc quoque attendcndum, quod cum aliquis quod injuste abstulit solvit, hoc debet 
dare, quod ab illo non posset exigi, si alienum non rapuisset." 

* I. II fin. 



CHAP. I.] anselm's doctrine of satisfaction. 6i 

be equivalent to the impunity of sin, and would violate the 
divine honour. But the impunity of sin would be equivalent to 
God*s ceasing to be the controller of sin (ordinator peccatorum) ; 
He would let something disorderly pass in His kingdom 
(" aliquid inordinatum in suo regno dimittere.") Right and 
wrong also would then become the same ; the latter, indeed, 
would have the advantage, because, as unrepented of and un- 
punished, it would be subject to no law. No doubt we men 
are enjoined simply to forgive those who sin against us. But 
that is said to us, that we may not encroach upon the pre- 
rogative of God : " for it belongs to no one but Him to take 
vengeance.'* Nor may we appeal against this to the omni- 
potence and goodness of God, and say that all that God^does is 
good, even when He sixoply forgives sin therefore ; for God's 
power arid goodness are determined by His «////(" it is not to 
be so understood that if God wills something improper [incon- 
veniens], it is right because He wills it ; for it does not follow 
that if God wills to lie, it is right to lie ") ; hence, as God wills 
to do nothing wrong or disorderly (inordinate), the absolving 
without penalty of a sinner who does not restore to Him what 
he has robbed Him of, is not within the scope of the freedom or 
the goodness or the will of God.^ The supreme righteousness, 
therefore, which is nothing else than God Himself, requires 
restitution or — this turn of thought appears first here — penalty.* 
Even the latter, that is to say, as deprivation of salvation 
(damnation), restores the divine honour, in as much as by it 
" man unwillingly pays back of his own what he took away . . . 
as man by sinning seized what is God's, so God by punishing 
takes away what is man's." ^ Even by penalty the beauty and 
order of the universe are maintained, which mu^t never be 
shaken (of the honour of God in itself it holds good that it 
cannot be shaken ; " for to Himself He is the incorruptible and 
in no way mutable honour. . . . No one can honour or dis- 
honour God so far as He is in Himself.")* But it is ** extremely 

1 I. 12. 

a I. 13, see above, p. 56, note 3. 

SI. 14 : "deum impossibile est honorem suum perdere : aut enim peccator sponte 
solvit quod debet aut deus ab invito accipit." 
*I. 15. 



62 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

alien to God " that He should abandon His costliest work, the 
rational creature (creatura rationabilis), to complete ruin.^ But 
as, on the other hand, He cannot associate sinful men with the 
holy angels, satisfaction must come in (** hold this most firmly, 
because without satisfaction, t.e,, without spontaneousjjaionent of 
thefdebt^ God cannot allow sTn to pass with impunity").^ The 
objection that we are dtrectcd to pray to God for forgiveness, 
which would surely be unmeaning if only satisfaction were of 
any avail, is met by saying t/tai the prayer for forgiveness is 
itself a part of the satisfaction^ Now the satisfaction is subject 
to the twofold rule, that it must be, first, restitution, and secondly, 
smart-money (Schmerzensgeld).* But what can man give to 
God which he was not already required to give Him in an\* 
case, since entire surrender is included in obligato ry ob edignpe ? 
^* If I owe Him myself and all I can do — even when I sin not, 
that I do not sin (so there is no thought here of supererogatory 
deeds), I have nothing that I can render back (reddam) for 
my sin." The objection : 'Ipf I consider reasons (rationes), I do 
not see how I can be saveoC but if I fall back upon my faith, 
then in Christian fahh which worketh by love L-hope^that'niy 
^salyation is possible, y is repelled ; for here it is just a question 
of reason.^ Man can therefore do nothing. And how much he 
would have to do ! " Thou hast not yet considered of what 
gravity thy sin is/' Even the smallest disobedience entails an 
infinite guilt (even to gain the whole world one may not commit 

1 In II. 4, it is said indeed (cf. I. 4) : ''Si nihil pretio^^ius agnosciiur deus reci>se 
<)unm rationalem naturam ad gau lendum de se, valde alienum est ab eo, ut ullam 
rationalem naturam penitus perire sinat." I. 25, p. 52. 

a I. 19. 

'I. 19: The Interlocutor says: **Quid est, quod dicimus deo : dimitte nobis 
del)ita nostra, ct omnis gens orat deum quern credit, ut dimitiat sibi peccata? Si 
enim solvimus quod dcbemus, cur oramus ut dimittat ? Numquid deus injustus est, 
ut iterum exigat quod solutum est ? Si autem non solvimus, cur frustra oramus, ut 
faciat quod, quia non convenit, facere non potest?" To this Anselm replies : •* Qui 
non solvit^ frustra dicit : dimitte ; qui autem solvit, supplicat, quoniam hoc ipsum 
pertinet ad solutiofum ut supplicet ; nam deus nulli quicquam debet, sed omnis 
creatura illi debet ; et ideo non expedit homini, ut agat atm deo^ quemadmodum par 
aim pariy Unfortunately Anselm has forgotten this last thought in his exposition 
•elsewhere. 

* See above, p. 60, note 3. 

*I. 20. 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 63 

the smallest sin), for the guilt is to be measured by the God who 
is despised.^ Man has therefore to furnish an infinitely great 
satisfaction, since it is already an established rule, thfkt" God's 
honour does not permit of man's receiving salvation(j* if he does 
not restore to God all he has taken from Him. so that as God has 
lost by him. He may also recover by him'' M The incapacity of 
human nature to furnish satisfaction catt^ake no change on 
this law, which follows from the honour of God * So therefore 
there remains imilyone -f^^ljition, if the " convenientia " (the 
befitting/requires redemption * — namely, the God-man, There 
must be someone " who shall pay to God for the sin of man 
something greater than all that is, apart from God ... it is 
necessary, therefore, that he who shall be able to give of his , 
own to God something that shall surpass all that is under God,, 
shall be greater than all that is not God . . . but there is noth-j 
ing above all that is not God, save God. . . . No one, therefore,/ 
is able to make this satisfaction save God'' Again, " nor must 
that satisfaction be made by anyone save man, otherwise mari 
does not satisfy." Conclusion : "If, therefore, as is certain (sicut 
constat), it is necessary that that heavenly State be made perfect 
from men, and this cannot be unless there is made the aforesaiq 
satisfaction, which no one can make save God, and no one owe.^ 
save man, it is necessary that the God-man shall make it."^ 

* See the exposition in I. 21. Because every sin is committed contra voluntatem 
dei, it Is greater ihan the value of the world — infinitely fjrcat. Further (I. 22), 
because man in paradise preferred the devil to God, it is "contra honorem dei, ut 
homo reconcilietur illi cum calumnia bujus contumelioe deo irrogat^e, nisi prius 
honoraverit deum vincendo diaholum, sicut inhonoravit ilium victus a diabolo." But 
how can he do that ? 

3 1. 23. 
»I. 24. 

* I. 4, and the strongest passage, I. 25 : ** Si deo inconveniens e»t, hominem cum 
aliqoa macula perducere ad hoc, ad quod ilium sine omni macula fecit, ne aut boni 
incepti paenitere aut propositum implere non posse videatur : multo magis propter 
eandem iiuonvenientiam impossibile est nullum hominem ad hoc profehi, ad quo 
/actus est,^* In II. 4, $, it is said, indeed, that while God ** nihil facit necessitate, 
quia nullo modo cogitur aut prohibetur facere aliquid," yet an inner self-willed neces- 
sity exists for God's carrying out His work : " necesse csr, ut bonitas dei propter im- 
mutabilitatem suam peificiat de homine quod incepit, quamvis totum sit gratia 
bonum quod facit." 

* II. 6. 



64 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

This God-man must possess the two natures unchanged 
(otherwise he would be either only God or only man), un- 
mingled, too (otherwise he would be neither God nor man), but 
also unseparated (otherwise no work having unity is effected) ; 
therefore he must possess them " entire jn one person " (integras 
in una persona).^ The God must have derived the human 
nature from Adam and Eve, but from a virgin,* and he must as 
man have surrendered this nature to death voluntarily. His 
dying was really free, for he was sinless.* If the supposed 
God-man now surrenders his life voluntarily to God, the satis- 
faction sought for is obtained. It must be his life ; for only 
this he is not under obligation to offer to God ; all that he could 
give of his own, it behoved him in some way or other to offer to 
God. " Let us see if, perhaps, this giving of his life, or parting 
with his soul, or surrender of himself to death, is for the honour 
of God. For God will not require it from him as a debt, be- 
cause, as there shall be no sin in him, he shall not owe it to 
die ... if man has had a sweet experience in sinning, is it not 
fitting that he should have a hard experience in satisfying? 
And if he has been so easily prevailed upon by the devil to dis- 
honour God by sinning that nothing could be easier, is it not 
just that, in satisfying for sin, he should overcome the devil to 
the honour of God with a measure of difficulty that could not 
be exceeded ? Is it not becoming (dignum) that as he uho by 
sinning so denied himself to God that he could not deny himself 

1 II. 7. 

2 II. 8 : The former, because the descendants of Adam must make sati:»facti(ui ; 
the latter, because of the four ways in which God can create man (from man and 
woman [ihe rule], neither from man nor woman [Adam], from man alone [Eve], from 
woman alone), the fourth had not yet occurred. But that it must be a virgin, if it 
was to be a woman, ** non opus est disputare." Here is a piece of Scholasticsm in 
the strictest sense of the term, and this kind of proof is continued in the following 
chapter, where it is shown that it had to be the second person of the Trinity who 
became man, because otherwise the predicates in the Trinity would have been 
destroyed, and for other equally cogent reasons ("duonepoies essent in trinitate, 
quia, si pater incarnatus esset, esset nepos pareiitum virginis per hominem assumptum, 
et verbum cum nihil habeat de homine, nepoa tamen esset virginis, quia Blii ejus erit 
filius" II. 9). Here, besides, there is a working everywhere with **mundius," 
*• honestius," in short, with relative notions. 

3 The prolix demonstration here in II. 10, 1 1 and 16 ff. shows that Aoselm did not 
understand how to make this point quite "rational." 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 6$ 

in a greater degree, should by satisfying so give himself to God 
that he could not give himself in a greater degree ? . . . But 
there is nothing harder or more difficult that a man can suffer 
/for tlu lionour of God spontaneously and not of debt than death, 
and in no way can man give Jmnself more fully to God than when 
he surrenders himself to death for His honour^ \ Hence the man 
sought for must be one who doesj iot die '* of necessity/* because 
he is almighty, nor " of debt," because he is sinless, who there- 
fore can die " of free choice because it will be necessary " (ex 
libera voluntate quia necessarium erit) ^ The worth of such a 
life as a satisfaction is infinite. Because the smallest violation 
of this life has an infinitely negative worth, the voluntary sur- 
render of it has an infinitely positive worth. Because sins are 
as hate-worthy as they are bad, so that life also is as love-worthy 
as it is good. Hence the acceptance of the death (acceptio 
mortis) of such a God-man is an infinite good for God (!), which 
far surpasses the loss by sin.^ But the giving of life (datio vitae) 

^ II. II. In II. 12, 13 further allied questions are discussed. The God-man was 
not *' miser,'* although he took the incommoda on himself; he was omniscient, 
because otherwise he would not have been perfectly good (!). 

^11. 14: "Si omne bonum tarn bonum est, quam mala est ejus destructio (!), 
plus est bonum incomparabiliter quam sint ea peccata mala, quae sine aestimatione 
superat ejus interremptio . . . tantum bonum tam amabile potest sufficere ad solven- 
dum quod debetur pro peccatis totius mundi, immo plus potest in infinitum (II. 17 
fin. : plus in infinitum. II. 20 : " pretium majus omni debito ") . . . si ergo dare 
vitam est mortem accipere (I), sicut datio hujus vitae praevalet omnibus hominum 
peccatis, ita et acceptio mortis." The question is next discussed, whether the death 
of Christ can be of advantage even to His enemies who crucified Him (II. 15 : the 
question is answered affirmatively ; for they acted in ignorance), then how Christ 
could be sinless (II. 16), for although He was conceived " absque carnalis delecta- 
tionis peccato " — the sexual appetite is, after Augustine, original sin — ^yet Mary was 
not sinless. This question is discussed with much prolixity. Anselm was apparently 
at a loss for a rational solution. In the end, though with uncertainty, he offers the 
explanation, that in prospect of the future effect of the work of Christ, Mary was 
purified from her sins before her birth, i,e., God purified her. After this the question 
of the voluntariness of the death of Christ is again discussed ; for if Mary was only 
purified in view of His death, while He needed a purified mother, it was necessary 
that He should die. This question again occupies a very large space, and is only 
solved by a subtle dialectic, which in the end cannot do without the support of the 
proposition, **ad hoc valuit in Christo diversitas naturarum . . . ut quod opus erat 
fieri ad hominum restaurationem si humana non posset natura, fisiceret divina, et si 
divinae minime conveniret, exhiberet humana" (II. 17, p. 85). 

£ 



66 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

can only have taken place " to the honour of God ; " for another 
spirit and purpose cannot be discovered. To this there is to 
be added, no doubt, the further design of setting us an example, 
so that by no sufferings we might let ourselves be drawn aside 
from the righteousness which is due to God. Others, it is true, 
have given us such an example ; but his is the most powerful, 
for he suffered without being obliged to suffer.^ Once again it 
is asked, byway of objection, whether he was not really obliged, 
because the creature ** owes all to God, what he is, and what he 
knows, and what he can do." As the answer, there suddenly 
appears the doctrine of surplus merit. When God leaves us free 
to offer Him something smaller or greater, a reward is the result 
if we give the greater, " because we give spontaneously what is 
our own." When this is applied to the God-man, the conclusion 
follows that his dying was necessary, because he willed it, 
but at the same time was not necessary, because God did not 
demand it. His death therefore is voluntary.* Now at length 
can the long-looked-for solution be given.' It follows in a sur- 
prising form, and, above all, with strange brevity : the God-man 
acts for himself, by no means as the representative of mankind. 
But the Father must recompense him for that* But nothing, 
again, can be given to the Son, since he has all. Yet it would 
be outrageous to assume that the whole action of the Son 
should remain without effect. Hence it is necessary that it 
should be for the advantage of another, and if that is willed by 
the Son, the Father cannot object, otherwise He would be 
unjust. " But to whom more fittingly (convenientius) shall he 
impart the fruit and recompence of his death than to those for 
whose salvation, as true reason (ratio veritatis) has taught us, 
he made himself man, and to whom, as we have said, he gave in 
dying the example of dying for righteousness* sake ? In vain 
surely shall they be imitators of him, if they are not to be partakers 

* This thought is dropped into the course of the discussion, II. i8. 

•-•11. l8. 

SIX. 19: "intueamurnunc prout possumus, quanta inde raiione J^^«a/«r ^«»w«a 
salvatio,** The Interlocutor : ** ad hoc tendit cor meum." 

* II. 19 : "eum autem qui tantum donuin sponte dat deo, sine retrihutione debere 
esse non judicabis . . . alioquin autinjustus (!) videretur esse si nollet, aut impotens 
si non posset." 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 6/ 

of his merit. Or whom shall he more justly make heirs of that 
which is due to him, but which he does not need, and of the 
superabundance of his plenitude (exundatiae suae plenitudinis) 
than his own parents and brethren^ whom he looks on, burdened 
in their poverty with so many and so great debts, and languish- 
ing in the depths of misery, that what they owe for their sin may 
be remitted to t/iem^ and what, by reason of their sin, they tach, 
may be given to them P'*^ God accordingly now rejects no one 
who comes to Him in the name of this God-man, on condition 
that he comes as it befits him, i.e.f that he so approaches Him, 
and so lives, as Holy Scripture directs.^ The divine mercy, 
therefore, has not been made void by the death on the cross — 
so it would seem when sin and the divine righteousness are 
contemplated — but it appears rather as inconceivably great, 
and at the same time as in perfect harmony with righteousness. 
God*s word, indeed, to the sinner is : " Take mine only-begotten 
Son and give him for thyself," and the Son s word is : " Take 
me and redeem thyself"^ Only the wicked angels cannot be re- 
deemed. Not as if the "price of His death would not be availing 
through its magnitude for all sins of men and angels " ; but the 
condition of the angels (they are not descended from one angel, 
and fell without a tempter) excludes redemption.* Anselm 
concludes with the lofty consciousness that " by the solution of 
one question " he has shown to be reasonable " all that is con- 
tained in the New and Old Testaments." * 

Because it really is what Anselm, in the last sentence, has 
asserted, namely, a (new) construction of the who/e of dogma 
from the point of view of sin and redemption, and because in 
this construction the disjecta membra of the Augustinian 
Mediaeval view of Christianity were for the first time knit 
together into a unily, this representation deserves a searching 
criticism. Standing on the shoulders of Augustine, but 
eliminating the "patristic," i.e., the Greek elements of his mode 
of thought, Anselm has, by his book, " Cur deus homo," placed 

1 II. 19, p. 93 sq. * II. 21. 

« II. 19. « II. 22. 

» II. 20. 



68 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

himself, as distinctively a dogmatic theologian, side by side 
with the Fathers of Greek dogma (Irenacus, Athanasius, and 
Origen). With the outline which John of Damascus had 
furnished another outline is now associated, which certainly, 
and not to its advantage, is still dependent on the old, but yet 
is evidently dominated by another principle. Anselm's repre- 
sentation, however, also deserves special consideration because 
it has given the impulse to permanent treatment of the subject, 
and because it is still regarded in our own day — and by 
evangelical theologians, too — as essentially a model. 

First of all, as against misunderstandings, it must be stated 
/^what Anselm's theory is not^ and is not meant to be. It is (i) 
V^ho doctrine of reconciliation in the sense of showing how the 
opposition of will between God and sinful humanity is removed; 
it is (2) no theory of penal suffering, for Christ does not suffer 
penalty; the point rather at which penalty is inflicted is never 
reached, for God declares Himself satisfied with Christ's spon- 
taneous acceptio mortis ; just for this reason it is (3) no theory 
of vicarious representation in the strict sense of the term, for 
Christ does not suffer penalty in our stead, but rather provides 
a benefit, the value of which is not measured by the greatness 
of sin and sin's penalty, but by the value of His life, and which 
God accepts, as it weighs more for Him than the loss which He 
has suffered through sin (between sin, therefore, and the value 
of the life of Christ there exists only an external relation ; both 
are infinite, but the latter is more infinite ; hence it more than 
satisfies God);^ it is, finally (4), not a theory which guarantees 
to the individual that he really becomes saved ; it aims rather 
at only slwwing for all the possibility of tluir being saved ; 
whether they shall be saved depends "on the measure in which 
men come to partake of so great grace, and on the degree in 
which they live under it," ix,^ on how they fulfil the command- 
ments of holy scripture (H. 19, p. 94). 

From this consideration of what the Anselmic theory is not 
and does not offer, it already appears how inadequate it is. 
Above all, its unevangelical character shows itself in the 4th 

^ The theory of a vicarious penal suffering is to be found, along with the theory of 
ransom of men from the devil, in Athanasius, see Vol. III. p. 308 of this work. 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 69 

point. The entire ancient world, indeed, and, as Anselm shows, 
the mediaeval world as well, rested satisfied with the doctrine of 
redemption^ as demonstrating the possibility of the redemption of 
the individual from sin ; but as this " possibility " can afford no 
comfort whatever to any distressed conscience, as it only satisfies 
the understanding, it is a worthless substitute for a real doctrine 
of redemption — Luther would say it is of the devil. If it cannot 
be shown from the person of Christ that we really are redeemed^ 
if the certainty of salvation (certitudo salutis) is not derived 
therefrom, nothing is gained ; all, rather, is lost, when we rest 
satisfied with such a doctrine, and append to it, as Anselm does, 
the conclusion, " If thou fulfillest the commands of Scripture, 
then the great provision of the God-man has an effect for thee." 
For Anselm, the question of personal certitude of salvation, the 
fundamental question of religion, is simply not yet raised at all. 
He is an old-world, a mediaeval, in a word, a Catholic Christian, 
inasmuch as he is satisfied with having made out that in virtue of 
Christ's provision some certainly from the ** mass of perdition " 
can be saved, and in fact shall be saved, because they live 
piously. But a second point is to be noted here. With every 
effort to express it as strongly as possible, the gravity of sin 
(pondus peccati) is not treated with sufficient earnestness if the 
thought of penalty, and therefore also of vicarious penal suffering, 
is entirely eliminated. In the idea that sin can be compensated 
for by something else than penalty there lies an underestimate of 
its gravity that is extremely objectionable. A recognition of the 
deep proposition that the innocent suffers for the guilty, that the 
penalty lies upon him, that we might have peace, is not to be 
found in the Anselmic theory. It does not appear even in the 
statement, prompted by warm feeling, II. 20: "Accept mine 
only-begotten and give Him for thyself." "Take Me and 
redeem thyself," for nothing is said of a penal suffering (just 
as little in the equally warm line of exposition II. 16, pp. 

77 sq.)- 

But before entering upon the objections to the theory, let us 

indicate its excellences. These are not small : (i) It must be 

held as greatly to the credit of Anselm that he laid hold of the 

problem at all, and made it the centre for a survey of faith ; (2) 



70 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

that heso apprehended it that redemption from ^//iV/is the question 
dealt with (the Greeks had always thought primarily of redemp- 
tion from the consequences of sin, liability to death) ; (3) it is 
to be specially noted that he conceived of guilt exclusively as 
guilt before God (disobedience), and entirely set aside the 
traditional doctrine (see even Augustine) that in redemption 
(by means of the crucifixion of the God-man) the question is 
about satisfying the devil ; ^ (4) that he discarded a merely 
aesthetic, or an externally historical, grounding of the death on 
the Cross (Christ did not die because it was prophesied, nor 
because the accomplishment of redemption had to correspond 
in its particulars with the history of Adam and the fall); (5) it 
is a point of much importance that Anselm made earnest efforts 
to prove the moral necessity of this precise mode of redemption.^ 
That which he calls " reason " (ratio) is, at least in many lines 
of proof, nothing but the strict moral imperative, and is 
accordingly entirely admissible here, and he expressly refuses 
to lay at the basis of his investigation the conception of an 
unrestricted divine arbitrariness ; with deeper insight and more 
courage than Augustine, he rather assumes everywhere that 
God's omnipotence is in inner subjection to His holy will. 
What, in his judgment, makes it possible to reflect rightly on 
God's arrangements is just our title to feel assured that the 
supreme righteousness and the supreme mercy, which He is 
Himself, can be understood by us as righteousness and mercy. 
Finally (6), according to Anselm, Jesus Christ, in His historic 
person and through His death, is for us the redemption. The 
grace of God is nothing but the redeeming work of Christ, />., 
the thought of grace is now for the first time entirely dissociated 
from that of nature and located in history, />., is connected 
solely with the person of Christ 

But contrasted with these excellences there are so many 
defects that this theory is entirely untenable. To a great 
extent these defects lie so much on the surface, and do such 

1 Whether indeed what Anselm offered as a substitute was in every respect better, 
or was not rather worse, will appear below. 

2 A noteworthy passage already in TertuUian (de jejun. 3) : "homo per eandem 
materiam causae deo satisfacere debet, per quam offenderat" 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 7| 

violence, equally to reason and to morality (not to speak of the 
attack on the gospel), that if the present-day theology stood 
under normal conditions not a word would have to be lost upon 
them. But as the current theology stands under the dominating 
influence of traditional faith and Romanticism, and discards all 
the criteria of gospel, morality, logic, and culture, when it sees 
the " 7iecessiiy of tite possibility '' of the traditional objects of its 
faith in some way justified, some discussion will here be in its 
right place. Besides what has been already noted above, the 
following things fall to be observed : 

First, the theory contains a series of imperfections, or, say 
contradictions ; for ( i ) the necessarium is to be strictly carried 
through, yet at important points Anselm does not get beyond 
the co7ivenie7iSy above all at the most important point, that it is 
just to men that the merit of Christ is imparted (II. 19, pp. 93 
fin.). Moreover, that God accepts the death of the God-man for 
the wrong done to Him is not based on strict necessity, for the 
sin of men, and the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, have 
nothing inwardly in common ; ^ (2) the satisfaction theory must 
be brought to a point in a way that is foreign to it, that it may 
be proved to have any effect at all. That is to say, the theory 
itself, strictly taken, only goes so far as to show that God's 
injured honour is vindicated and men take an example from 
the death of Christ to adhere steadfastly to righteousness, even 
under the severest sufferings. But tiow can 4key take an 
example ? Will the example, then, have the power to incite 
to earnest imitation ? .." Will theJTjiot^c^er go on sinning ? 
Yet the whole provision, according to Anselm, avails only for 
those who regulate their life according to Holy Scripture. So 
the provision will be a failure ! Anselm certainly felt this, and 
therefore passed quite beyond his theory by asserting that God 
sees occasion for His rewarding the voluntary action of the 
God-man, and for His conferring this reward oh men, by 
reckoning to them as the kinsmen of Christ the merit of Christy 
without which they shall be quite unable to become imitators of 

1 The keen criticisai which the present-day Catholics apply to Anselm's theory 
(see Schwane, pp. 296 ff.) rests, on the contrary, on the strong Scotist antipathy to 
unconditional necessity. 



72 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. I. 

Christ. This turn of thought does all honour to Anselm's 
piety ; but it destroys his doctrine of satisfaction ; for if Christ's 
suffering establishes merits it does not contain strict reparation ; 
but if it contains satisfaction, it establishes no merit Nor does 
Anselm speak here of a surplus merit, but he suddenly regards 
t/u wJiole work of Christ as merit ; but then it is not satisfaction. 
Further, when men suddenly come to be considered as kinsmen 
of Jesus, the question arises as to why this standpoint — that 
Christ is to be regarded as the head of elect humanity — was not 
asserted at the beginning of the inquiry. (3) The way in which 
the conceptions of the righteousness and honour of God are 
treated is full of contradictions. On the one hand righteous- 
ness, it is maintained, finds expression in penalty as much as in 
the positive attainment of salvation as an end; on the other 
hand righteousness requires that this end be reached. In keep- 
ing with this is the way the conception of honour is dealt with ; 
indeed, three conceptions are here presupposed. First of all, it 
must be held entirely impossible for God to receive personal 
wrong ; His honour can suffer absolutely no injury (I., 15 : "By 
nothing can the honour of God, so far as it is concerned, be 
increased or diminished ; since for itself it is the same incor- 
ruptible and absolutely immutable honour"). Then it is as- 
serted that His honour, certainly, can be injured, but that it 
can likewise be restored, either by penalty (damnation of the 
human race) or by satisfaction. Lastly, it is asserted that the 
honour of God cannot tolerate the destruction of His world- 
plan, which culminates in the salvation of the reasonable 
creature, that, accordingly, God must forego penalty, bring 
about the salvation of the creature, and therefore choose satis- 
faction. (4) While in general the idea is always carried through, 
that on account of His honour God cannot simply pardon men, 
the turn of thought occurs in c. 19, p. 41, that God cannot do 
so on viatCs account^ because a man polluted by sin, even though 
he were restored to paradise, would not be as he was before the 
fall. Yet this important turn of thought is not wrought out to 
a further issue. (5) It is asserted of God that He stands above 
all change of human conditions, and supports all things by His 
holy omnipotence ; hence the rule holds good (I.e.) : ** it is not 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 73 

for man to transact with God as an equal with an equal." Yet 
this rule is contravened by the whole exposition, which proceeds 
on the principle (I. 23, p. 47) : " Man never should, and never 
can, receive_from_ God^what God has^rop6sed~to give him, 
unless he restores to God all that he took fromTTiinV'so that as 
God Tias~"Ibisr'^ him. He shall also recover by him.** This 
principle pTaces'God and man entirely on the same footing as 
injured and injurer. God is wronged as a man is wronged. 
But if it is said, that in point of fact, as moral beings, they 
would stand on the same footing, yet this correct observation 
must not alter the fundamental relationship, that God is the 
Lord and man His creature. (^6) The assumption that Christ's 
death was voluntary, in the sense that He could also have 
declined death, cannot be carried through without contradiction, 
and yet, as Anselm knew very well, everything in his theory 
depends on this point First of all, Anselm can only set aside 
by clumsy sophisms the Bible passages that assert that death 
was included^ in the obed ieyice of Christ, and that He drank the 
cup In trembling fulfilment of the will of the Fatlur. Secondly, 
when the subject itself is dealt with, it cannot be proved that 
the obedience of Christ did not extend to the suffering of death, 
for as it was — according to Anselm — the man Christ that 
suffered, death is also included in what He owed to God, since 
man, even apart IronT'sln, owes himself entirely to God. The 
action, moreover, which Christ offered up when He died " to 
t he honour of God " w as not objective ; it was personal. But^" 
again according to Anselm — man is under obligation to direct 
all personal action ** to the honour of God." ^ 

Second, the old ecclesiastical material with which Anselm 
works is not adapted to the new purposes for which he employs 
it From the time of Athanasius, and even earlier, the doctrine 
of the two natures was so understood as to imply that the God- 
Logos is the subject, and that He takes human nature into the 
unity of His divine being. This idea alone suits the purpose 
which the Greeks had in view, namely, to explain the reality of 
the conquest of death, and the deification of our nature. From 
this as a starting-point, Athanasius developed in detail a multi- 

1 See Ritschl I.e. I., pp. 44 f. 



74 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

tude of points of view, this among the rest, that by His dying — 
which was possible to Him through the human nature — the 
God-Logos bore the penalty, and expelled death from human 
nature. But Anselm wished to trace back everything to satis- 
faction, and he adhered strictly to the correct theory of Ambrose 
and Augustine, that it was the man Jesus who died, and that it 
is He therefore who is our mediator. At the same time, how- 
ever, the impossibility of reconciling this view with the doctrine 
of the two natures now at last found definite expression in him ; 
for where the subject of the redeeming personality is regarded^ not 
as tlie God'Logos, but as, with Anselm, the man, there is a cancel- 
ling, not, indeed, of t/ie Godhead of Christ, but certainly of the 
two-nature doctrine. The term, " the Godluad of Christ^' occurs 
in Anselm, within the lines of the strict theory, only as a deter- 
mination of the value of the human person in his action} Christ 
appears as the man, whose life has an infinite value. That that 
is something quite different from the second person of the 
Godhead is obvious.* When Anselm now continues to use the 
two-nature doctrine as a hallowed tradition, a quite Nestorian 
diremption of the person is the result (see I. 9, 10), such as had 
regularly occurred in the West from the time of Augustine, 
when there was an attempt to work out one's own Christology as 
a doctrine of redemption, and yet a refusal to relinquish that 
doctrine of natures. But further, the two-nature doctrine still 
appears welcome on this ground also, namely, that by means of 
it every difficulty whatever which the theory of redemption 
offers can be got quit of ; for as everything conceivable can be 
distributed between the predicates, "human and divine natures." 
one finds himself herewith equal to any difficulty, and can 
suppress every doubt, and excuse all indolence of thought. 

1 See Ritschl I., pp. 43 f. 

2 Hence also the feeling in relation to Christ is quite different among the Latins from 
what it is among the Greeks. The latter look for the most part to the God in Christ, 
the former to the man. Ritschl has (p. 47) pointed out the remarkable, though by 
no means solitary, passage in Anselm's Meditations (12) : **Certe nescio, quia non 
plenc comprehendere valeo, unde hoc est, quod longe dulcior es in corde diligentis 
tc in eo quod caro eSy quatn in eo qtiod verbum : dulcior in eo, quod humilis, quam in 
eo quod sublimis . . . Haec omnia (the human) formant et adaugent magis ac ms^s 
exsuUationem, fiduciam et consolationem, amorem ac desiderium." 



CHAP. I.] ANSELxM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 75 

Anselm confessed that himself in a naive way (c. !/> p. 85): 
" What does not answer to the man in Christ must be trans- 
ferred to the God, what does not suit the God must be applied 
to the man." In this way the earnest Greek speculation, which 
always stood for the unity of the God-man, was discarded ; and 
thus it continued to be in the West. Among those who to-day 
interject in discussion the " Godhead " of Christ, how many 
reflect that the term obliges them to prove the divine-human 
unity y and that, if they imagine they may disregard this obliga- 
tion, an Athanasius and the Fathers of dogma would despise 
them as empty talkers or as heretics ? These men knew full 
well that the mere term, ** the divinity of Christ," affirms simply 
nothing, is heretical, indeed, because the God-mcuihood must be 
proved. But to those in the West that no longer occurs ; for 
they neither can, nor will, prove it, by employing the means of 
the Greeks ; nay, they follow quite a different scheme in the 
doctrine of redemption : Christ is the man whose action has an 
infinite value. If, then, the term, "doctrine of two-natures,** 
continues in use, then among those who really reflect on Christ 
as Redeemer it is deprived of its meaning through the Western 
conception of it. Hence it is only used still in the service of 
" conservative interests," or to secure an authorised exemption 
from all energetic reflection on Christ as Redeemer by means of 
the convenient formula ; this He did as God, and that as man. 

Third, besides what has been set forth up to this point, there 
is still a series of the gravest objections to be urged against the 
whole character of the Anselmic doctrine. Let us only briefly 
indicate them : (i) In many passages, and these, too, the most 
important, Anselm proceeds according to a logic by which 
already everything can be proved. The gravest malpractices 
of Scholasticism already betray themselves in him ; the self- 
restraint of the ancient thinkers, modest as was the expression 
given to it by the Fathers, is wanting to him. (2) Everything 
is conceived of quite abstractly, very much in the way in which 
a clever child thinks and speaks of such things, This theory 
manages to describe the work of redemption by Jesus Christ 
without adducing a single saying of His (what is brought 
forward does not serve to elucidate, but consists in the explaining 



76 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

away of important passages of Scripture). Anselm holds it as 
superfluous to accentuate anyone personal feature in the picture 
of Christ ; the sinless man with the infinitely valuable life is 
enough. The death of Christ is entirely severed from His life- 
work on earth, and isolated. This God-man need not have 
preached, and founded a kingdom, and gathered disciples ; 
he only required to die. (3) There is no reference to the 
eternal election of the Christian community, or the reference 
is only feeble (see I. 16, and in connection with Mary). As 
the Kingdom of God is not spoken of, so neither is the Church, 
and its eternal existence in the view of God. The category of 
the inner moral necessity of the good and holy even for God is 
con?>istently confounded with that of reason (ratio), by means 
of which, it is represented, one can constrain even a heathen to 
believe in the God-man, the result being that the mystery 
of faith is profaned. (4) Sin is conceived of certainly as guilt 
before God ; but this guilt is not the want of trust (faith) in 
Him, but is conceived of as a personal injury. How any one 
pleases to deal with personal injuries is a matter for himself; 
on the other hand, the guilt which is want of child-like fear and 
love, and which destroys God's world, must be wiped out, 
whether it be in wrath or in love. Anselm fails to see that. 
(5) And this brings us to the worst thing in Anselm's theory : 
the mythological conception of God as the mighty private 
man, who is incensed at the injury done to His honour 
and does not forego His wrath till He has received an at 
least adequately great equivalent; the quite Gnostic antagonism 
between justice and goodness, the Father being the just one, 
and the Son the good ; the frightful idea (as compared with 
which the views of the heathers and the Gnostics are far to be 
preferred) that mankind are delivered from the wrathful God ; ^ 

1 Very correct statement by Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alex. , p. 290 : " It 
was reserved for Anselm, centuries afterwards, to array the justice against the 
goodness of God, and thus 10 complete the resemblance of Christianity to its ancient 
deadly foe" (namely, Gnosticism). Only, Gnosticism distinguished between the just 
God (the demiurge) and the good God as two hostile deities. But the old patristic 
theory was that by His death Christ has redeemed men from the devil. If we isolate 
the death from the life of Christ, this is in fact the best theory, for it brings no 
discord into the deity. It was no doubt a step of progress on Anselm's part that he 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. JJ 

the illusory performance between Father and Son, while the 
Son is one with the Father ; the illusory performance of the 
Son with Himself, for according to Anseltn tfie Son offers Him- 
self to Himself {\l. i8: "filius ad honorem suum seipsum sibi 
obtulit ") ; ^ the blasphemous idea that the Son's giving of life 
(datio vitae) is for God, as acceptance of death (acceptio mortis), 
a benefit ; the dreadful thought that God is superior to man, as 
having the prerogative of not being able to forgive from love, a 
payment always being needed by Him (I. 12); the vitiated 
conception of our prayer to God for forgiveness, that it is a part 
of our satisfaction, but can never in itself have the effect of 
forgiveness (I. 19: ** qui non solvit, frustra dicit : dimitte*'). If 
it is now added that, as has been shown above, there is proved 
by all this only the possibility of our being saved, that the 
thought of the penalty of sin is eliminated (and therefore the 
righteousness of God too laxly conceived of), that here no 
innocent one suffers penalty for the guilty, and that, in the 
effect upon us, only the feeble thought of example comes clearly to 
view, then we must say, that in spite of Anselm's good intentions 
and in spite of some correct perceptions, no theory so bad had 

wished to carry through the thought that God is at the same time holy and merciful. 
But this thought cannot be carried through by means of the death of Christ as isolated, 
and thought of as satisfaction, if this is held as satisfaction to God Himself. So it is 
always better to let the satisfaction be paid to the devil, because even on that assump- 
tion the idea of righteousness is satisfied — in a mythological way, no doubt (the right 
view would be, that justice must be done to evil, namely by penalty) — without Christ 
the merciful and God the wrathful being brought into conflict, while Christ is never- 
theless regarded as Himself God. That the latter is an impracticable thought was 
clearly seen, moreover, by Augustine, after he had weighed its possibility. Bigg 
points to de trinit. XIII. ii : " Sed quid est justificati in sanguine ipsius? Quae vis 
est sanguinis hujus, obsecro, ut in eo justificentur credentes ? Et quid est reconciliati 
per mortem 61ii ejus ? Itane vero, cum irasceretur nobis deus pater, vidit mortem filii 
sui pro nobis et placatus est nobis?" This cannot be ; " for omnia simul et pater ct 
filius et amborum spiritus pariter et concorditer operantur." He therefore rejects the 
Anselmic theory in anticipation. This theory can only be explained from the fact 
that the thought of God as the Father who is nigh to us had fallen into the back- 
ground in the Middle Ages, and the old view of the Trinity as unity was no longer 
held. Here too, therefore, the ancient traditional dogma was discarded, the term 
Trinity retained. 

1 In Constantinople the Synods from the year 1 156 f. decided, that the mass is 
offered also to the Son, as He is at the same time the offerer and the offered, and the 
Trinity admits of no diremption. See Ilefele V.", p. 567. 



78. HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

ever before his day been given out as ecclesiastical. But perhaps no 
one can frame a better, who isolates the death of Christ from His 
life,and wishes to see in this death something else than the consum- 
mation of the **service" which He rendered throughout His life} 

In its complete form Anselm's theory exercised little influence. 
The conception, which he only touched on, of the " meritorious- 
ness'* of the work of Christ, very rapidly came to the front, and 
made his satisfaction theory — which, moreover, conflicted with 
the Augustinian tradition — without effect. Added to this was 
the fact that interest in the proof of our reconciliation to God 
was not satisfied by Him. At this point Abelard intervened, 
without giving, certainly, a connected and exact development of 
the doctrine.* After rejecting still more decidedly than Anselm 
the relation of the death on the Cross to the devil, he sets out 
from the fundamental thought of the love of God, and at the 
same time makes it clear to himself that sin has separated men 
from God, that it is a question therefore of bringing them back 
to God, and of again imparting to them trust in God. Further, 
he keeps it before him that the fruit of redemption relates to 
the chosen, with regard to whom God's disposition did not first 
heed to be changed. Accordingly, the incarnation and death 
of the Son of God can be conceived of only as an act of love, 
and even the righteousness of God must be so defined that it is 
subordinated to love, or, say, is identical with it. It was not 
required then that Christ should first assuage the wrath of God. 
It is as easy for God to forgive sin as it was for Him to bring 
into existence a sinless man, who united himself to Christ. But 
in order really to win us for Himself, Christ has given us the highest 
proof of love, which kindles our cold hearts and leads us back 
to the trust and love of God. Further (the reflections do not 

1 That Anselm himself, however, has, in other writings, carried through other 
thoughts with regard to redemption has l>een shown by RitschI, l.c. I., pp. 46 f., 109. 
He surrendered himself to the certainty of grace even without such calculations, on 
lhe other hand emphasised more strongly the conception of merit. 

2 See RitschI, I.e. I., pp. 48 ff. ; Schwane, pp. 304 ff. ; Deutsch, Abalard, pp. 
336 ff. ; Seeberg in the ** Mittheil. u. Nachricht. f. die ev. K. in Russland," 1888, 
March -April. Also Reuter in his 1st, and especially Bach in his 2nd, vol., pp. 6^ f. 
77f.,88flr. 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 79 

stand in a strict order) in this deed of Christ in dying on the 
Cross God beholds us, that is, He forgives us our sins, in so far 
as He reckons to us the merit of Christ, because Christ stands 
before God as the head of humanity ; He likewise lets the merit 
of the perfect righteousness of Christ fall to our advantage ; for 
in the obedience of Christ God is satisfied. Finally, Christ goes 
on working continuously for us, for inasmuch as He prays for 
us unceasingly to the Father, it is in keeping with the righteous- 
ness of God to reckon to us this merit. But by Christ's "merit" 
Abelard never understands "a sum of distinct actions; the 
fulness of love to God dwelling in Christ is His merit." " Thus 
it is in will, not in works, which are common to the good and 
evil, that all merit consists."^ There is therefore here nothing 
objective and nothing magical. Even the death on the Cross is 
not estimated as an objective deed, but belongs entirely — as a 
chief part — to the evidences of the love of Christ which He 
exhibited from the beginning. Chrisfs merit is His service of 
love ; but love calls forth responsive love, and he who loves 
(because Christ has first loved him) has forgiveness of sins 
granted him, nay, in the interchange of love which springs from 
Christ there lies the forgiveness of sins itself.^ 

Abelard has furnished no strict proof for the necessity of the 
death on the Cross ; his propositions, moreover, are inadequate, 
because he has not clearly perceived that t/iat love is the highest, 
is indeed alone effectual, which, by taking the penalty upon 
itself, reveals at the same time the greatness of the absolution 
and the greatness of the cancelled guilt. He did not perceive that 
the sinner cannot be otherwise delivered from guilt than by 
experiencing and seeing the penalty of guilt. But he had too 
keen a sense of the love of his God, and of the oneness of God 

1 So a disciple of Abelard, who hit upon his meaning ; see Seeberg, p. 7, and 
Deutsch, p. 378 ff. 

2 I do not transcribe here the passages, for in their isolation they do not give a 
true view. There fall to be considered more particularly several passages from the 
Exposit. ep. Rom. (especially on chap. III. 22 ff., V. 12 fif.), from the Sermons V., 
X., XII., thcolog. Christ. IV., and the Dialogue. How much Abelard's whole 
Christology and doctrine of redemption are dominated by the thought of love and 
counter love, how entirely love is ** merit," could not be ascertained from separate 
quotations. 



8o HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. L 

and Christ, to entertain the Gnostic thought that God needs a 
sacrifice or an equivalent, or that for Him Christ's death is a 
benefit. And he knew himself so intimately united to Christ in 
living fellowship that it was he who first introduced again into 
the doctrine of redemption the apostolic thought of the perpetual 
intercession of Christ for us, and on the other hand saw also in 
the earthly life of Christ, not one proof of love — the death — but 
a continuous stream of love, in which the " work " of Christ also, 
namely His ** merit,** ix., the operation of His loving will, is 
included^ 

1 Deutsch says very correctly, p. 382 : " Accordingly the ultimate and deepest 
thought of Abelard is this, that reconciliation rests on personal fellowship with Christ. 
It is He who, by perfectly fulfilling the will of God as man, realised the divine 
destination of humanity, in this sense satisfied God, and thereby opened again to mankind 
the closed gates of paradise. He who belongs to Him has through Him the forgive- 
ness of sins, and with Him access to God, but at the same time also the power of the 
new life, in which he fulfils the commands of God from love ; and so far as this fulfil- 
ment is still imperfect the righteousness of God comes in to complete it." On the 
other hand Reuter (I., p. 243) has given this perverted view of Abelard's doctrine : 
** For one who wrought reconciliation, there was substituted one who proclaimed 
that God was already reconciled [but according to Abelard Christ is no "proclaimer,*'^ 
and God is not reconciled, if we are not] ; instead of a passion of the Son, who alone 
opens again the way to the Father [but that is just Abelard's meaning], a martyrdom 
with psychological efficacy was held up to view [the word ** psychological " is here 
meant to create an impression of the profane, but we have surely only the choice 
between this and physico-chemical] ; instead of change of disposition on God*s part, 
change of disposition on man's was spoken of." [Is God love or is He of alienated 
mood ? Is it not the pettalty for man that as a sinner he must think of a God of 
terror, and can anything greater take place in heaven or earth than when a man's 
feelings are revolutionised, i.e,^ when his fear of a God of terror is transformed into 
trust and love ? If it were possible to bring home to the sinner the thought of the 
loving God, in whom he can have confidence, while he feels himself guilty, then 
certainly Christ would have died in vain ; but that is a contradiciio in adjecto.] 
Even Seeberg, in spite of all his efforts to be impartial, has made a rationalistic 
caricature of Abelard's doctrine, and in keeping with this has much bepraised sayings 
of Bernard, some of which are to be found also in Abelard, some of which Abelard 
has happily set aside (the justa potestas diaboli). That which we really miss in 
Abelard — that Christ bore our penalty — is also wanting in Bernard, and the 
'* example" of Christ is much more incautiously emphasised by the latter than by the 
former, who always thinks of the pmver of love that proceeds from ChrisL But 
Bernar<l, it is alleged, stands much higher than Abelard, because he can give a more 
lyrical expression to the impassioned love to Christ, while Abelard thinks only of the 
doctrine and the example (!), and because, it is asserted, something "objective" is 
to be found in him which is supposed to be wanting in Abelard. Even according to 
Seeberg, indeed, this "objective" is quite falsely defined by Bernard, but that is of 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 8 1 

The polemic against Abelard directed itself also against his 
theory of redemption ; but it was contested essentially from the 
basis of the Augustinian theory of redemption (vanquishmcnt 
of the claim of the devil), while there was no following of 
Anselm.^ At the same time all were increasingly at one in 
this, that the point of view of merit must be applied, and that 
Christ must be contemplated as Redeemer in the light of His 
human quality. With this understanding also the Lombard drew 
up his connected accountof the opinions of the Fathers in his doctri- 
nal compendium. As in the case of Augustine, the "man" (homo) 
in Christ takes the prominent place, as the moral personality 
chosen and sustained by God, and the whole life of Christ is 
understood from this point of view.* At the same time, in 
order to understand the peculiar nature of redemption, all 
points of view were combined that were furnished by the past : 
obedience, redemption from the devil, death and penalty, but, 
above all, the merit of death, then also sacrifice. With Augus- 
tine, the strict necessity of this precise means (death on the 
Cross) is rejected ; with him and the other Fathers, the buying 
off of the devil (including deception) is asserted. With Abe- 
lard, the death is viewed as a proof of love, which awakens 
counter love ; with him Christ is regarded as the representative 
of humanity before God ; with Augfustihe, the necessity for a 
reconciliation of God through the death of Christ is rejected 
(God loves even His enemies ; He has loved us beforehand 
from eternity, and we are reconciled, not with the wrathful, 
but with the loving God) ; finally, a penal value in the death of 
Christ is asserted, in the sense that by it the eternal penalty is 
remitted (see Athanasius), the temporal penalty in future 
(after death) falls away. On the other hand the Anselmic 
theory is not mentioned at all.* The Lombard shows there- 
no consequence, if only there is "something" there. When will there be a getting 
rid in Protestantism of this "something," which at best only establishes the possibility 
of redemption ; and when will there be a distinguishing between a vicarious penal 
soflfering and a satisfaction demanded by God ? 

iSee Bach II., pp. 88-122. Besides Bernard, William of St Thierry specially 
comes into view here. 

> Sentent. lib. III. , dist. i8, 19. 

•Ritschl I., p. 56 f. 

F 



82 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. I. 

fore that the patristic tradition still continued to be the only 
subject of doctrine, and that it was only with an effort that 
what was new asserted itself against it Yet the whole under- 
taking to give a combined and connected view was itself new 
(oii which account the Lombard was regarded with much 
distrust as an Abelardian).^ 

Not till the thirteenth century did the new dogmatic impulses 
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries take their place with equal 
rights, materially, though not formally, alongside the mass of 
traditional patristic tenets. By the latter, which were repre- 
sented partly by a voluminous exegetical tradition, and partly 

^ This was not without ground ; for apart from the objective redemption which con- 
sists in deliverance from the fetters of the devil (yet even to this a subjective turn is 
given, see Sentent. III. Dist. 19 A : "si ergo rectefidei intuitu in ilium respicimus 
qui pro nobis pependit in ligno, a vinculis diaboli solvimur, 2'.^., a peccatis^ et ita a 
diabolo liberamur, ut nee post hanc vitam in nobis inveniat quod puniat. Morte 
quippe sua, uno verissimo sacrificio, quidquid culparum erat, unde nos diaholus ad 
luenda supplicia detinebat, Christus exstinxit, ut in hac vita tentando nobis non 
prsevaleat") the Lombard knows only of a subjective redemption ; l.c. "quo modo a 
peccatis per Christi mortem soluti sumus ? Quia per ejus mortem, ut ail apostolus, 
commendatur nobis caritas dei, 1.^., apparet eximia et commendabilis caritas dei erga 
nos in hoc, quod filium suum tradidit in mortem pro nobis peccatoribus. Exhibita 
■autem tantse erga nos diiectionis arrha, et nos movemur a€ceitdimurqtu ad diligendum 
deum^ qui pro nobis tanta fecit, et per hoc justificamur^ i.e.f soluti a peccatis j'usti 
efficimur. Mors ergo Christi nos justificcUy dum per earn caritas excitatur in cordibus 
ftostris.** Yet along with this the other turn of thought is found : " dicimur quoque et 
aliter per mortem Christi justificati, quia per Jidem mortis ejus a peccatis mundaniur.^^ 
But his thought is not further followed out ; on the contrary, it is said again Dist. 19 
F : ** reconciliati sumus deo, ut ait apostolus, per mortem christi. Quod non sic in- 
telligendum est quasi nos sic reconciliaverit Christus, ut inciperet amare quos oderat^ 
sicut reconciliatur inimicus inimico, ut deinde sint amici qui ante se oderant, sed jam 
nos diligenti deo reconciliati sumus ; non enim ex quo ei reconciliati sumus per 
sanguinem filii nos coepit diligere, sed ante mundum, priusquam nos aliquid essemus. 
Quomodo ergo nos diligenti deo sumus reconciliati ? Propter peccatum cum eo habe- 
damns inimicitias, qui habebat erga nos caritatem, etiam cum inimicitias exercebamus 
adversus eum operando iniquitatem. Ita ergo inimici eramus deo, sicut justitise sunt 
inimica peccata et ideo dimissis peccatis tales inimicitise finiuntur, et reconciliamur 
justo quos ipse justi6cat. Christus ergo dicitur mediator, eo quod medius inter deum 
et homines ipsos reconciliat deo." But here again another thought comes in, when 
the Lombard immediately continues : "reconciliat autem dum offendicula hominum 
tollit ab oculis dei^ id est dum peccata dclet quibus deus offendebatur et nos inimici 
ejus eramus." The prevading thought of the awakening of counter love, which the 
Lombard took over from Abelard, is already to be found in Augustine ; see e.g,, de 
catech. rud. 4 ; " Nulla est major ad amorem invitatio, quam pravenire amando, et 
nimis durus est animus, qui dilectionem si nolebat impendere, nolit rependere." 



CHAP. I.] ANSELM'S doctrine OF SATISFACTION. 83 

by theological positions no longer understood in their original 
connection, the trivial spirit of mediaeval theology was fostered, 
which mingled in a marvellous way with its energy and with 
its juristic acuteness. The statement of the thesis in scholastic 
science was invariably lofty and great; "but by its love for 
details even heaven was dragged dowru" From the scientific 
standpoint, and from the standpoint of "juristic thinking/* we 
cannot find fault, certainly, with this spirit; for does not science 
require that the problems be thought out to their ultimate 
consequences ? The error lay simply in the premises, and in 
the idea that that thinking was thinking about religion. But 
even that idea it was necessary then to entertain, for religion 
was of course contemplation ! 



# 



CHAPTER II. 

HISTORY OF DOGMA IN THE. PERIOD OF THE MENDICANT 
ORDERS, TILL THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTEENTH 
CENTURY. 

If in this chapter we again direct our attention in the first 
instance to the history of ecclesiastical piety, of ecclesiastical 
law and of ecclesiastical science, it is less with the view of under- 
standing the c/ianges which dogma passed through in this 
period, than in order to show how the conditions under which it 
stood served to make it ever more stable and to protect it from all 
attack. It must, above all, be shown how it was possible that 
the enormous revolution of the sixteenth century — keeping out 
of view the Anabaptist movements — stayed its course before 
the old dogma. This can only be understood, however, when 
we consider what confirmations dogma received from the thir- 
teenth to the fifteenth century. These confirmations were a 
consequence of the peculiar history of piety, of ecclesiastical 
law and of science in this period. All of these sought, not for 
an " unmoved mover " in the background — for dogma was 
simply no longer a " mover " — but for an immovable basis. 
Mysticism, the development of ecclesiastical law, Nominalist 
theology — all of them could only develop themselves on the 
basis of an authoritative dogma, or, say, could only protect 
themselves on that basis against dangerous consequences. 

It is only in the second place that there fall to be considered 
how far the general conditions produced also certain changes in 
dogma, then how far an individual piety developed itself, how 
from this piety the need for individual certainty of salvation 
arose, and how this need gathered itself into a mighty force. 
Of itself the force was strong enough to demand, and to carry 

out, a revision of the entire ecclesiastical tradition. But it will 

84 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 85 

appear in the last Book (see below) that it was impeded in its 
unfolding by the still greater power of a fifteen century long 
development 

I. On ike History of Piety. 

What was germinating in the twelfth century, the century of 
the Crusades — namely, the piety of which Bernard was the 
subject and delineator, which derives its power from humility 
before God and from love to the sorely suffering Redeemer — 
opened into blossom in the holy beggar of Assisi, and " its 
fragrance filled the world." In Francis mediaeval piety attained 
its clearest and most forcible expression. In him it uttered 
Itself most simply, and therefore most powerfully and most 
impressively, because its chord — "humility, love and obedience" 
— was here struck with the greatest purity, while the quality of 
tone which Francis lent to it was the most melting.^ 

Humility — that is entire poverty. The reverence for that 
which is beneath us, which Bernard and his followers pro- 
claimed, admits of no other robe than that of perfect poverty 
and humility. Long ago no doubt, nay, on from the beginning, 
Greek monks had striven after this ideal ; but in their hands it 
became a torch, which consumed, along with the body, the ima- 
gination also, the powers of perception, and the wealth of the 
inner life. It was to be the means of emancipation from the 
body ; but often enough it made a wilderness of the spirit. 
Here, on the other hand, it is the imitation of the poor life of 
Jesus, and while it thus acquired a personal ideal, it also de- 
veloped out of itself, in the inexhaustibly fresh imagination of 

^Miiller, Die Anfange des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften, 1885. 
Sabatier, Leben des h. Franz v. Assisi, German by M. L., 1895. ^ Mariano, 
Francesco d' Assisi e alcuni dei suoi pid recenti biograii. Napoli, 1896. Mariano 
brings a sharp, and in many respects well-deserved, criticism to bear on the work of 
Sabatier, which is captivatingly written and instructive, but, after the style of Renan, 
mingles confusedly past and present, religion and poetry. Mariano has made a sub- 
stantial contribution to the estimation of St. Francis, by correcting the partly rhetori- 
cal, partly material, exaggerations of Sabatier. An excellent lecture, taking a survey 
of all the principal points, has been published recently by Hegler " Franciskus von 
Assisi und die Giiindung des Franciskanerordens " (Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. K. 6 Bd. 

p. 395 ff- 



86 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

St Francis, a wealth of intuitions from which all provinces 
of the outer and inner life derived profit. A spirited investi- 
gator has shown us what effects were produced by St. Francis 
in the field of art^ But in all spheres of human life, even inclu- 
ding that of strict science, the new impulse took effect — the 
godly fear which gives honour to God alone, the living view of 
Christ, which brought the personal into the foreground, the 
holy simplicity which shed its light into the heart and over the 
world. In the sunny soul of the sacred singer of Assisi, the 
troubadour of God ("joculator domini") and of poverty, the 
world mirrored itself, not as merely the struggle for existence, 
or the realm of the devil, but as the paradise of God with our 
brothers and sisters, the sun, the moon and the stars, the wind 
and the water, the flowers and the living creatures. In poverty, 
which is nothing else but sist^ of the humility by which the 
soul becomes like the eye, which sees everything save only 
itself, a new organ was obtained for contemplating God and the 
world. But poverty is not only imitation of the poor life of 
Jesus, it is also, nay pre-eminently, imitation of the apostolic 
life, the life without care, of " the pilgrim preacher and herald 
of love." The oldest rule of St Francis presented this ideal 
with the utmost clearness, and created the joyous, devout 
Franciscan " family." ^ 

With the spirit of which poverty and humility are the 
evidence, love must unite itself. Going forth in pairs, the new 
Apostles must serve in lowly love ; there is no work for which 
they must hold themselves too feeble ; " for the love of Jesus 
Christ " they must " expose themselves to enemies, both visible 
and invisible"; acording to the Sermon on the Mount, they 
must willingly suffer wrong ; above all, wherever they come, in 
house and hall, they must render to men the loving service of 
preaching repentance, must deliver the message : " fear ye and 
honour, praise and bless, thank and adore, the Lord God omni- 
potent in trinity and unity ... be of penitent. heart, bring forth 
fruits meet for repentance, for know ye that we shall soon die. 
Give and it shall be given you, forgive and ye shall be forgiven, 

iThode, Frandskus v. Assisi und die AnfUnge der Kunst der Renaissance 1S85. 
«See MUUer, l.c. pp. 19 ff., 185 ff. 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 8/ 

and if ye forgive not, the Lord will not forgive you your 
trespasses. Blessed are they who die in penitence, for they 
shall be in the Kingdom of Heaven," etc^ But the power of 
this love had its source in the example of Christ and of His 
devoted disciple, St. Francis, who reproduced ever more deeply 
in his experience the life and suffering of his Master. More 
and more his feelings became merged in one alone — in love. 
This feeling, which in him was so strong that it often over- 
powered him, so that he was forced to retire to lonely churches 
and forests to give it full vent, was love to Christ ; but it 
wedded itself ever more closely to unlimited devotion to his 
neighbour, to concern for his spiritual and bodily well-being, to 
warm compassion and self-abasement in the service of his 
brethren. So out of humility and love he made of his life a 
poem — he, the greatest poet who then lived ; for, after fiery 
conflicts, the sensuous element in his ardent nature appeared— 
not destroyed, but subdued and glorified, nay, transformed into 
the purest organ of the soul's life.^ 

A great work of honte missions was not contemplated by St. 
Francis, but begun ; he was not the first to undertake it, but he 
was the first through whom the whole Church derived benefit 
from it : Christendom has certainly the right faith ; but it is 
not what it ought to be. It is subject to priests and sacraments ; 
but now the individual must be dealt with. He must be laid hold 
of^ and guided to repentance. The gospel must be brought home 
to every man : the world must be again shaken, and rescued 
from its old ways, by a mighty call to repentance : he who has 
tasted the sweetness of the love of Christ will turn with 
gladness to repentance and poverty. Yet it is not for the 
monks and priests alone that there must be concern, but for 
individual Christians, for the laity ; they, likewise, must be won 
for a penitent and holy life. The " Brothers of Penitence," of 
whom St. Francis formed visions, and whom he brought into 
existence, were, in spite of their continuing in family life, really 
ascetics, who were required to maintain strict separation from 
the world and from civic life, and, above all, to take no part in 

1 The Rule of 1209. See Miiller, p. 187. 

^ See the beautiful characterisation in Thode, Lc. p. 59 fil 



88 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

military service. The great saint had not yet made terms with 
the world ; the later Tertiaries were as little his creation as the 
later Franciscans.^ 

From the monks to the secular priests, from the secular 
priests to the laity — this was the course by which Christianity 
was to be delivered from secularity ; it is at the same time the 
history of the awakening of religious individualism in the West. 
And in the measure in which religion became, extensively and 
intensively, more world-renouncing, it acquired (paradoxical, 
it may seem, but intelligible enough) a higher social and poli- 
tical importance, penetrated more deeply into the life of the 
people, and developed itself out of the aristocratic form (in 
which, as Roman, it had come to the barbarian nations) into a 
form that was popularly social* The further the monachising 
proceeded, the more did the virtuosi in religion see themselves 
compelled to engage in practical tasks. When the new factor 
of apostolic life was introduced into the ideal of poverty and 
ascetic self-denial, the ideal acquired an enormous immanent 
power iox propagandism^ a power such as monachism had never 
before possessed, and which does not belong — either formerly 
or now — to its distinctive nature. Where "apostolic life" 
becomes the watchword, there monachism is at once seen to 
apply itself to positive work among the people. In the eleventh 

1 See MttUer, pp. 1 17-144. An excellent description of the aim of St. Francis in 
Werner (Duns Scotus, p. 2) : ** The original designs of the order founded by St. 
Francis were the restoring of the original Christian Apostolate, wiih its poverty and 
renunciation of the world, that through the force of this restoration there might be 
restored to the Church itself the apostolic spirit ; the awakening in Christian souls 
everywhere of a striving after holiness and perfection ; the keeping the example of a 
direct following of Christ before the eyes of the world as a continuous li^dng 
spectacle ; the comforting of all the suffering and wretched with the consolation of 
Christian mercy ; and, by self-sacrificing devotion, the becoming all things to those 
spiritually abandoned and physically destitute." 

2 Cf. Thode, I.e. p. 521 f. : **The beggar of Assisi is the representative of the 
third estate, the great lower mass of the people, in their combined upward striving 
towards a position self-sustained and independent ; but at the same time also the 
representative of each individual out of this mass, as he becomes conscious of himself, 
and of his rights in relation to God and to the world. With him, and in him, 
mediieval humanity experiences the full power of the emotional force that dwells in 
each individual, and this inner experience brings with it a first knowledge of one's 
own being which emancipates itself from dogmatic general conceptions." 



CHAP. II.] TUE HISTORY OF PIETY. 89 

and twelfth centuries what engaged attention was the great 
political problem of releasing Church from State ; the question 
was, how to break down the great forces, the power of the 
Princes, the power of purely secular national bishops, in short, 
the title to exist of all unpliant political factors. At the close 
of the twelfth, and in the thirteenth centuries, there followed 
immediately upon this undertaking the positive evangelising of, 
and giving ecclesiastical character to, all relationships, to the 
whole of civilisation and the individual life, this being done 
under the dominating idea of the apostolical. Monachism, as 
apostolic life, entered upon this new work as formerly in the 
days of Clugny it entered upon the work of freeing Church 
from State. And how powerfully did religious individualism 
assert itself in Francis, when he ventured to place before himself 
and his disciples the example of tfu Apostles^ and did not 
hesitate to say to the brothers that they could, and should, be 
what the Apostles once were, and that to them ever>'thing that 
Christ had said to the Apostles applied ! 

He was not the first who awakened this " apostolic life." We 
know of powerful phenomena in the twelfth century in which 
the new impulse had already found expression.^ But these 
older movements, tenaciously as they survived (and to some 

1 See the history of sects in the twelfth century, especially the Waldensian, cf. 
Mtlller, Die Waldenser und ihre einzelnen Gruppen bis zum Anfang des 14. Jahr- 
hunderts (1886), and the older fundamental work of DieckhofT. The ground-thought 
of the Waldensian movement is unquestionably **to imitate the apostles, and there- 
fore to observe literally the instructions which the Lord gave to his wandering 
disciples in the missionary address, Matth. 10. The undertaking, therefore, displays 
everywhere the same features as, thirty years later, the similar attempt of Francis in 
its initial stages : distribution of all property among the poor and renunciation of all 
further possessions, according to Matth. 19, 21, 29; then, the apostolic preaching, 
in constant itineracy, and the particulars as to apostolic garb and methods of 
travelling. They go two and two, without shoes, only sandals of wood on their feet, 
in simple woollen garments, without money. They move from place to place, seek 
shelter and support among those to whom they preach the gospel — for the workman 
is worthy of his hire — and despise all settled life and private householding, in imita- 
tion of the Son of man, who had not where to lay His head." The Waldensians 
seem to have exercised an influence on St. Francis ; but as to how, and by what 
means, nothing is known. On this account it will always be possible to believe in 
an entire independence, in a resemblance merely in fact ; but this is not probable, 
especially as relations have been ascertained between St. Francis and Southern 
France. 



90 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

extent survived as Catholic, in spite of being condemned), came 
too early ; the clergy were not yet strong and matured enough 
to tolerate them, and, besides, there was lacking to them the 
element of unconditional submission to the Church, or more 
exactly, to the secular clergy, and of renunciation on principle 
of criticism of the Church.^ 

1 The "Poor" were already excommunicated by Lucius III. (1184). On their 
spread in Northern Italy, where they had precursors in the Order of the Humiliates, 
but were only brought into existence by Waldes, on the relation of the Lyonnese 
Poor to those of Lombardy, and on the breach between the latter and Waldes, see 
MuUer, I.e. pp. 11-65. '^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ efficacy of the Sacraments depends on the 
worthiness of the celebrator — a revolutionary principle under then existing conditions 
— appeared again among the Poor of Lombardy before 121 1. Of itself the view was 
fitted to sever entirely the connection with the ancient Church, and was perhaps one 
of the causes of the ultimate breach between the Lyonnese and Lombard poor. The 
former were not so sharply opposed to the Roman Church as the latter. They did 
not regard it as Antichrist, but included it rather in the great community of the 
baptised, and recognised its administration of the Sacraments. But they made it a 
grave reproach against the Roman Church that its hierarchy exercised apostolic powers 
without adopting the apostolic life of poverty and homelessness (see the demand of 
the Didache regarding the qualities of apostles and prophets). They did not contest 
the full authority of I he duly ordained bishops, who derived their dignity from the 
apostles ; but they looked upon it as a deadly sin that they refused to live as did the 
apostles. A certain wavering in their attitude towards the Roman Church was the 
result. The judicial and legislative authority of the hierarchy was certainly disputed, 
or at least held as needing restriction. But as the *' Brothers" did not organise into 
communities the " Friends " (the "believers") won over by them, but rather left 
them in the old relationships, the position of the reigning Church towards the Brothers 
and their adherents was much more definite and decided than was their position 
towards it. The French kinsmen of the Waldensians were not a new evangelical 
community, based on the idea of the universal priesthood, but "the sect itself is 
nothing but a hierarchy, which, founded on the thought of the apostolic life and the 
demand for a special ethical perfection, places itself alongside the Roman hierarchy, 
that, in an organisation which partakes at least of the fundamental forms of the latter, 
it may carry on preaching, dispense sacramental penance, and in its own innermost 
seclusion celebrate the Eucharist. So little is there the idea of the universal priest- 
hoo<l that the laity do not belong at all to the sect, membership being conferred 
rather only by consecration to one of the three hierarchical grades." (See Miiller, p. 
93 ff. and cf., as a parallel, the way in which the Irvingites now carry on their pro- 
paganda, and relate themselves to the communitas baptizatorum). Nor was the old 
traditional Church doctrine assailed by the Waldensians. They diverged only in 
respect of certain doctrines which bore upon practice, and which, besides, had not 
yet been formulated. Thus they rejected purgatory, and disapproved therefore of 
the Church practice that was connected with the idea of it (/.^., of all institutions 
that were meant to extend their influence into the world beyond). The rejection of 
oaths, of service in war, of civil jurisdiction, of all shedding of blood, seemed to them. 



CHAP. IL] the history OF PIETY. 9^ 

For this is the third element in the piety of St Francis — 
childlike confidence in the Church and unconditional obedience 
to the secular clergy. " Let all the Brethren," so it runs in the 
Rule of 1209, "be Catholics, live and speak as Catholics . . . 

as to so many mediaeval sects, simply to follow from the Sermon on the Mount. On 
the other hand, the branch in Lombardy (which carried on a propaganda in Germany) 
took up a much more radical attitude towards the Roman Church (see Miiller, p. 100 
ff.) Although in what was cardinal it adhered to the standpoint of the French group 
of the stock (close communion, but only of men and women living apostolically ; 
administration of the sacrament of penance ; instruction of the ** Friends" by preach- 
ing), it nevertheless saw in the Roman Church only apostasy, which at a subsequent 
time it traced to the benefactions of Constantine (cf. the Spirituales). This Church 
appeared to them accordingly as the synagogue of evil-doers and as the whore, its 
priests and monks as Scribes and Pharisees, its members as the lost. And so all 
regulations, orders, sacraments, and acts of this Church were to be rejected. Every- 
thing without exception, above all, the Pope and the mass, then also all legal 
regulations for worship fell under the adverse judgment. We can therefore gather 
testimonies here to the full for the ** evangelical " character of these Lombards, who 
rejected all ecclesiastical differences of rank within the Christian community, all 
pomp, riches, lights, incense, holy water, processions, pilgrimages, vestments, cere-r 
monies, etc., and in place of these required support of the poor, who would have 
nothing to do with the worship of Mary and the saints, who disbelieved as much in 
miracles of saints as in relics, who — at least originally — rejected the entire sacramental 
system of the Church, and both limited the number of sacraments and only recognised 
their validity on condition that the priest was free from mortal sin. But from the 
beginning onwards this attitude towards the reigning Church was really in many 
respects only ** academic," for the great mass of the ** Friends," t^^., of adherents, by 
no means actually so judged the Roman Church, but remained within the sacramental 
bonds. Further, the extremely defective vindication of this radical opposition on the 
part of the Brethren themselves shows that it was more the result of the breach forced 
upon them from without, or, say, of the doctrine of poverty, than the product of 
a religious criticism dealing with what was essential. Finally, this view is confirmed 
by the circumstance that from the beginning the Brethren left themselves, as can be 
proved, a convenient alternative, by means of which they might be able to recognise 
the celebration of the sacraments by one guilty of mortal sin (they said that in that 
case the worthy Christian receives directly from the Lord in the dispensation of 
sacramental grace). Moreover, in the time following they approached always more 
closely to the Church and its sacramental celebration, partly on practical grounds (to 
avoid detection), partly because confidence in their own " apostolic " powers always 
became feebler, and the Catholic orders were viewed with longing and with greater 
trust. The whole movement, therefore, was at bottom not dogmatic. It was on the 
one hand — if we would draw the conclusions without hesitation — too radical to play 
a part in the history of dogma (Christianity is the apostolic life), on the other hand 
too conservative^ as it set aside absolutely nothing that was Catholic with good 
conscience and clear insight. It is a phenomenon in the history of Catholic piety ^ 
though it may be worth considering in connection with the history of dogma that 



9^ HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

and let us regard the clergy and all religious persons as masters 
in those things which relate to the salvation of the soul, and do 
not deflect from our religion, let us reverence in the Lord both 
their rank (ordinem) and their office and their administration." 
(See the Rule of 122 1, c. 19).^ That a nature like St Francis 
felt oppressed by nothing external^ if only free scope was given 
him for his ideal,^ that he could maintain his inner freedom and 

the whole hierarchico-sacramental apparatus of the Church was called in question. 
Had the movement come a generation later, the Church would no doubt have found 
means for incorporating it into itself, as it did the Franciscan. Such an attempt was 
even made with the "Catholic Poor " of the converted Durandus of Huesca, formerly 
a French Waldensian (acknowledged by Innocent III. a year before St. Francis 
stood before him), and of the converted Lombard, Bernhard Primus, also one of the 
*' Poor'' ; but there was no more success in leading the whole movement back to the 
channel of the Church by means of such approved Poor ones (Mdller, p. i6 ff.) Only 
in the Mendicant Orders did the powerful counter-movement become organised and 
permanent (cf. MUller's excellent directions for finding the connection between the 
approvals of the Societies of Durandus, Dominic, and Francis (Waldenscr, p. 65 if.); 
also the same author's Anffinge des Minoritenordens (pp. 43, 69 f.), and the perhaps 
anti-Waldensian passage on the Rule of 1209 (p. 187) : " Nulla penitus mulier ab 
aliquo fratre recipiatur ad obedientiam "). The Mendicant Orders naturally, 
particularly that of Dominic, set themselves in opposition, not only to the unsanctioned 
** Poor," but to sectarianism as a whole. On this latter there is no reason to enter in 
the history of dogma, for however high its importance may have to be estimated in 
connection with Church politics and social life, and however clearly it indicates that 
piety felt itself straightened within the tyrannical structure of the Roman Church and 
among its priests and ceremonies, it is equally certain (hat the mediaeval sects con- 
tinued entirely without influence as regards the development of dogma. It cannot 
even be said that they prepared the way for the Reformation ; for the loosening 
which, to some extent, they brought about, was no prior condition of that movement. 
In the controversies rather which prevailed between the Roman Church and the 
dualistic (or pantheistic) sects, the Reformation placed itself entirely on the side of 
the former. Wliat prepared the way for the Reformation in the domain of theology 
^keeping out of view the development of the ideas of the State and of natural rights) 
was always only the revived Augusiinianism and the subjectivity of mysticism allied 
with it. As long, therefore, as it is regarded as expedient that the history of dogma 
should not be treated as history of culture, or as universal history, attention must be 
withdrawn from such phenomena as the Cathari, Albigenses, etc. 

> But in the year 12 10, and later, Francis would not be induced to connect himself 
with an already existing Order, or to conform to the older Monachism, and in this 
obstinacy towards tlie Pope and the cardinals he showed that he knew the greatness 
of his cause. 

'^ This was not done indeed, and it led to sore distress on Francis' part ; yet 
Sabaiier seems to me to have exaggerated this strain in relationship (see Mariano, and 
especially Hegler) ; the Cardinal to whom the movement was chiefly due also did the 
most to make it political. The relation of St. Francis to the Curia and to the Church 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 9J' 

pure cheerfulness of soul, even under quite other burdens thaa 
the Church then imposed, that he must have emptied himself of 
his very essence if he had undertaken to " abolish " anything, 
are things that are manifest For him, obedience to all existing 
ordinances was as much a need as humility, and never assuredly 
did the shadow of a sceptical reflection as to whether the 
hierarchy was as it should be, or as to whether it should exist 
at all, fall upon the soul of this pure fool. But how could it 
fail to come about that the ideal of poverty and the ideal of 
obedience should come into conflict ? We cannot here unfold 
the history of St Francis and of the Minorite Order. It is well 
known against what mistrust he had to contend on the part of 
the secular clergy (even the curia), especially in France (but 
even on the part of the older Orders), and how the conditions 
reproduced themselves here which we have observed at the 
establishment of monachism in the end of the fourth, and 
beginning of the fifth, centuries, as well as in connection with 
the Cluniacensian reform in the West It is well known also- 
that "poverty" was the great theme in the history of the 
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries ; that there was as much 
stubborn and passionate controversy over it as in the fourth 
and fifth centuries over the natures of Christ, and that in this 
controversy as artful and clever formulae made their appearance 
as at Chalcedon and Constantinople. For thousands, the con- 
troversy about poverty was a controversy about the gospel 
Itself By this conflict the formulae of the old dogmatic were 
little or in no way touched ; but they, so to speak, sank into the 
ground. The question about the nature of the gospel was 
narrowed down to a practical question about life-conduct 
Even when we keep out of view the pedantic mode of treatment, 
the way of stating the question appears to us strangely in- 
adequate. Yet " poverty," certainly, was only the final expres- 
sion for the whole sum of the virtues involved in imitating 
Christ. What the watchword '* poverty " denoted was an 
immense step of advance from dead faith, and from a barren 
service of ceremonies and works to spiritual freedom in religion^ 

politicians, or rather the relation of these to him, still needs a thorough investigation. 
Excellent discussions in Hegler, I.e. 436 fif. 



94 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

and to an earnest personal Christianity. The new Order soon 
broke up into different sections. In the one principal section, 
the last to submit, it certainly wrought invaluable results in the 
first generations of its existence. Its preaching kindled an 
earnest Christian life, indeed in many regions it was the first 
thing that produced an individual Christianity at all among the 
laity — so was it in Germany. Yet as everything was brought 
by it into closest connection with the confessional, the sacra- 
ments and the Pope, as all greater freedom was repressed as 
sectarianism, or crushed out — ^just by the Mendicant Orders — 
only an inferior kind of existence was allowed to this individual 
piety of the laity. For what the Minorites were obliged to 
sacrifice to the hierarchy — it was nothing less than the chief 
part of their original ideal, only the shadow remaining — they, so 
to speak, indemnified their conscience by the unparalleled 
•energy with which they served the Church in its plans for 
ruling the world, and won for it the interest and allegiance of 
the laity. Here, at this final stage, therefore, the enemy the 
Church had in her own midst was once more vanquished ; the 
enormous force of world-forsaking Christianity, which threatened 
the political supremacy of the Church, became visibly her 
servant ; the " exempted " Order became, along with the Order 
of Preachers, her surest support. 

But in other sections the obedience was not powerful enough 
to control that force.^ " Poverty " turned itself against the rich 
and worldly Church, and when there was to be threatening and 
forced silence, it threw off restraint. It called upon the Church 
to serve ; it united itself with the old apocalyptic ideas, that 
had already been long exercising their power in secret ; it 
adopted the critical attitude of the " Lombard Poor " ; it joined 
hands readily with the new social, and even the new territorial, 
ideas, the conceptions that were taking shape of the inherent 
rights of nations and individuals, of States and Princes.^ While 

1 Of course many personal elements entered also, such as we can study in the most 
interesting of the earlier Franciscans, Elias of Cortona. 

'^ See the writings of Joh. de Oliva and Ubertino de Casale (both were under the 
influence of the writings of Joachim of Fiore). The view of history friendly to the 
State as against the Secularised Church appears already in the middle of the thirteenth 
century (and even among the Dominicans) : see Voelter in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 95 

it declared the Church to be Babylon, and hierarchy Anti-Christ, 
it was not fastidious about its partnership. It left the dogmatic 
of the Church unassailed ; but against the Church itself it 
declared war, an undertaking so full of contradiction that it was 
only possible in the Middle Ages, the period of contradictions 
and illusions ; for did not this Church possess in its system of 
dogma the surest and most definite title for its existence ? 
Only in one branch (the Fraticelli) did the contradiction 
become so radical that the fences dividing from the heretical 
sects (Apostolic Brethren, Beghards) became frail. 

From these last-mentioned sections nothing permanent de- 
veloped itself.^ The importance for universal history of the 
vast movement of the Mendicant Orders is not to be seen at all 
in new doctrines or institutions, though these were not entirely 
wanting, but lies rather in the religious awakening that was pro- 
duced by them during a period of 150 or — if a time of slackened 

IV., H. 3. On the " Spirituales," and the "Fraticelli" (the latter are not to be 
identified with the former), as well as on the conflicts in the time of John XXII. 
and Louis of Bavaria, see Ehrle in the Archiv. f. Litt.-u. K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters, 
VoL L and II., Miiller, Kampf Ludwig*s des Bayern 1879 f., the same author in 
the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. VI., part i, Gudenatz, Michael von Cesena, 1876. 

1 At a later time Hussism incorporated and wrought over a great part of the 
Franciscan and Joachimic-Franciscan elements (see MQller, Bericht uber den 
gegenwartigen Stand der Forschung auf dem Gebiet der vorreformatorischen Zeit, in 
den Vortragen der theol. Conferenz zu Giessen 1887 S. 44), and as it spread widely, 
even beyond Bohemia, among the lower orders it prepared the way for the great 
Baptist movement and the social revolutions of the sixteenth century. Yet creations 
of a lasting kind appeared here as little as permanent influences on the Church 
generally. But from the point of view of Church history and the history of culture, 
the study of the powerful movement, essentially one throughout, which began with 
Joachimism and culminated with the Hussites and Baptists, is of the deepest interest. 
Like the " Illuminism " (Aufklarung) in the eighteenth century, and the Romantic 
ideas in the nineteenth, Joachimism spread over Europe in the thirteenth century, not 
as a new system of dogma, but as a new mode of viewing history and the highest 
problems, comforting to the seriously disposed, because it flattered them ; cf., e.g,^ 
the Chronicle of Salimbene (Michael, Salimbene und seine Chronik., Innsbruck 
1889). Strange that this movement should have begun in the hills of Calabria, the 
most out-of-the-way district of Southern Europe ! It is still too little studied, while 
it certainly belongs to a period more open to our inspection than any in which 
prophetism played a part. Where prophets appear and are welcomed, fabrications 
are the immediate sequel. But the history of Joachimism is the typical history of all 
prophetism. Of the way in which it succeeds in adjusting itself in the world, 
Salimbene also furnishes some beautiful examples. 



g6 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

effort on the part of the Orders is overlooked — of 300 years. 
"The individual began to reflect on the saving truths of the 
Christian religion, to enter himself into a personal relation to 
them." That is the highest significance of the Mendicant 
Order movement. In this sense the Orders were a prior stage 
of the Reformation. But when religion passed into the circles 
of the laity, and independent religious life was awakened there, 
it was a natural result that redoubled vigilance should be exer- 
cised lest the old dogma should be injured. So long as dogma 
is in the hands of priests and theologians, it can maintain a 
certain freedom ; this is here natural to it, indeed. But as soon 
as the laity become thoughtfully interested in ecclesiastical 
Christianity, dogma becomes extraordinarily sensitive. Those 
who are entrusted with the care of the religio publica must — as 
the Mendicant Orders did — guard it with jealousy, if the result 
of the general interest is not to be a general running wild of 
religious speculation. The criterion of what is firmly fixed 
ecclesiastically must everywhere be applied without hesitation, 
especially if the Church practice of the present is to be cor- 
rected. On the other hand, the ecclesiastically pious laymen 
themselves demand that the dogma shall continue as a roclur 
de bronzCy and they feel every movement or alteration of it to be 
an injury to their personal Christianity. This was the situation 
that was always becoming more firmly established in the three 
centuries before the Reformation. The larger the number grew 
of those who sought to become really familiar with religion, the 
larger became also the number of sectaries of all kinds ; but the 
more inviolable also did dogma appear to the ecclesiastically 
faithful, and the greater were the efforts of the hierarchy to put 
down all "heresy." Besides, dogma had come from the be« 
ginning, and indeed chiefly, to the mediaeval nations, as a 
series of legal ordinances. This character it must retain, 
all the more if the spiritual life had a more vigorous and 
manifold development ; otherwise the unity of the Church was 
lost. There must at least be an imperative demand for fides 
implicita, i.e., for respectful obedience. Thus the awakening, 
which in Germany seems to have gone on continually increasing 
from the middle of the thirteenth century, contributed to main- 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 97 

tain the unalterable character of dc^ma. Ideally dogma had 
always been immutable ; but now to the reality of this un- 
changeable thing there attached itself a profoundly practical 
interest. 

The history of piety in the centuries immediately preceding 
the Reformation consists of a series of sermons on repentance 
and of revivalsy of reforms with a view to a deepening of 
spiritual life that was to extend through the . whole of 
Christendom. Only in its leading points have we to take a 
survey of it. What comes first under our notice here is the 
alliance of the Mendicant Orders with Mysticism. 

By Mysticism, as has been explained above, there is to be 
understood nothing but theological piety (contemplation), having 
a reflex aim, modelled on Augustine and the Areopagite, and 
fertilised (though not thoroughly) by Bernardine devotion to 
Christ That this theology should have been found congenial 
to the temper of the Mendicant Monks, as soon as they at all 
took to do with theology, is easily understood. Bonaventura, 
Albertus, and Thomas Aquinas were the gfreatest Mystics, not 
although, but because, they were tJuologians and Mendicant 
Monks.^ The same is true of David of Augsburg and 
Theodoric of Freiburg. Widely-extended investigations have 
been instituted with the view of classifying the Mystics, and it 
has been thought possible to distinguish between a Scholastic, a 
Romanic, and a German, a Catholic, an Evangelical, and a 
Pantheistic Mysticism. But at bottom the distinctions are 
without importance. Mysticism is always the same ; above cUl 
there are no national or confessional distinctions in it. The 
differences never have to do with its essence, but only either with 
the degree, the way and the energy with which it is applied, or 
with its being predominantly directed upon the intellect or upon 
the will. Even as regards this last point it is only a question of 
difference of degree, and, at the same time, this last-mentioned 
distinction shows again very plainly the complete alliance of 

^ Herrmann remarks very correctly (Verkehr des Christen mit Gott i. Aufl., p. 
100] : " The (present day) lovers of Mysticism present on a diminished scale the 
same spectacle as the great Schoolmen ; they seek repose from the work of their faith 
in Mystic piety." 

O 



98 HISTORY OF .DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

Mysticism with objective theology ; for it is from this aUiance 
that distinction springs. Mysticism is Catholic piety in general^ 
so far as this piety is not merely ecclesiastical obedience^ that isy 
fides implicita. Just for that reason Mysticism is not one form 
among others of pre-reformation piety — perhaps the latent 
evangelical — but is the Catholic expression of individual piety 
in general. The Reformation element that is ascribed to it lies 
here simply in this, that Mysticism, /.^., Catholic piety, when 
developed in a particular direction, is led to the discernment of 
the inherent responsibility of the soul, of which no authority can 
again deprive it ; and that it is thereby, at the same time, 
brought face to face with the question of the certitudo salutis 
(assurance of salvation), a question which can never again pass 
out of its view till it is solved in the act of faith. But where 
that question is determined, Mysticism points beyond itself ; for 
the entire sc/ieme of thought in which it moves always admits only 
of a perpetually ificreasing approach to the Deity ^ and never allows 
tlu constant feeling of a sure possession to arise. That, as a 
Christian, one must always be growing, was rightly discerned by 
the Catholic piety ; but it never arrived at a clear and peaceful 
vision of the truth, that this growth can, and must, have its sure 
and inalienable basis in firm confidence in the God of gfrace, that 
is, in salvation. As for Catholic Christianity to-day, the 
Evangelical faith, described as " trust-faith " (" Fiduzglaube '*), is 
a stumbling-block and foolishness, so also before the tribunal of 
Mediaeval Mysticism it was a thing of which there was no 
understanding. For these Mystics, who framed and saw 
through so many sacred paradoxes, there was one paradox that 
remained hidden, namely, that in the spiritual life one can only 
become what he already is in faith. Only where they arrived at 
the discernment of this can they be described as precursors of 
the Reformation. 

If Mysticism is withdrawn from the Catholic Church and set 
down as " Protestant," then Catholicism is emptied of its 
character, and evangelical faith becomes deteriorated. Is there 
then to be no living and individual Catholic piety? But where 
should we have to seek it, if not in Mysticism ? In the three 
centuries before the Reformation, where can we find even a single 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 99 

manifestation of truly religious life that had not its source in 
" Mysticism " ? Or is Mysticism to be denied to Catholicism, 
because the latter requires, above everything else, devotion to the 
Church and the Sacraments, and because the history of Mysticism 
is the history of continual conflicts between it and sacramental 
and authoritative ecclesiasticism? But when did it become 
permissible to regard such conflicts as showing that one of the 
two factors is illegitimate? Is there not a conflict also between 
the unquestionably Catholic ideal of asceticism, and the equally 
unquestionable Catholic ideal of world supremacy ? Are the 
great Mystics not the great Saints of the Church ? Or shall it 
be held, against all that appears, that this Church cannot produce 
and tolerate independent piety within its own lines? Now, no 
Evangelical Christian, certainly, would ever think of confounding 
his delight in the warm spiritual life which Catholic Christianity 
exhibits in the centuries before the Reformation^ with full 
approval of it, if — one must, unfortunately, add it — he had made 
clear to himself what evangelical faith is. The inability to fight 
one's way to such faith produces the craving for Mysticism 
which is then^ as one is of course a Protestant, claimed for 
Protestantism. The fondness, it is true, for " German " 
Mysticism has received a severe check from records that have 
shown that if one is enthusiastic about Master Eckhart, etc., and 
derives edification from him, one must be still more enthusiastic 
about St. Thomas, or about the Areopagite and Augustine. 
But still more powerful checks will be needed if a view of 
history is to be got quit of, which seems the proper one to all 
fragmentary natures that deal in a dilettante way with religion, 
theology and philosophy — a Mystic that does not become a 
Catholic is a dilettante. For one, what is of value in the 

* Herrmann (Verkehr des Christen mit Gott 3 Aufl., p. 21) justly emphasises the 
following also : ** We must confess to ourselves that if wc Evangelicals think we have 
another kind of religion, we are in any case still far from having reached the thorough- 
ness of culture which Catholicism possesses in that Mysticism ... it is a wonderfully 
perfect expression of a particular kind of religion. The speculations of Catholic 
Mysticism are of ancient date. Apart from Neoplatonism, it has little peculiar to it in 
this respect. But in the capacity to make personal life the subject of observation 
and delineation, it represents a height of attainment which Protestantism has not yet 
reached." 



100 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. II. 

Mystics is their " individualism/' as if everything were already 
implied under this form ; for another, it is their feeling, no 
matter what the "feeling" is for; for a third, it is the 
pantheistic metaphysic, which, without much trouble, can be 
abstracted from Mysticism; for a fourth, it is their ascetic views 
and their resolution of Christology into the Ecce Homo, or into 
the endless series of men travailing in birth with the Christ ; for 
a fifth, it is the light of " illuminism " (Aufklarung) which broke 
forth from Mysticism. What his.torian, with clear vision, will be 
able to pass by these fruits of Mysticism without sympathy, or 
with amused indifference ? What Christian will not draw with 
heart-felt delight from the spring of fresh intuitions which flows 
forth here ? Who, as an investigator of history, will not readily 
acknowledge that an Evangelical Reformation was as impossible 
about the year 1200 as it was prepared for about the year 1500? 
But if Protestantism is not at some time yet, so far as it means 
anything at all, to become entirely Mystical, it will never be 
possible to make Mysticism Protestant without flying in the 
face of history and Catholicism.^ 

1 The right conception of Mysticism as Catholic piety has been taught — in opposi- 
tion to Ullmann's ** Reformers before the Reformation" — by Ritschl (Rechtfert. und 
Versohn. vol. I., Geschichte des Pietismus, vols. I. -III., Theologieund Metaphysik) 
who has also given hints for further investigation (connection of the Mystics with the 
Anabaptists, Hussites, etc.). He has been followed by a large number of more 
recent investigators. Besides the works named above, p. 25, among which those of 
Denifle are epoch-making, as having shown that Master Eckhart is, in his Latin 
writings, entirely dependent on Thomas, and even in other respects owes his best to 
him (Archiv f. Lilt. -und K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters II., pp. 417-640; preparatory 
work had already been done here by Bach in his monograph on Eckhart), see Lasson, 
Meister Eckhart, 1866, also the more recent works on Tauler and the Friends of God 
(Denifle), Pfeiffer's edition of the German Mystics (2 vols., 1845-57), Suso's Works, 
edited by Denifle (1877), still further, Ritschl in the Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. IV., p. 
337 ff., Strauch, Marg. Ebner und Heinrich v. Nordlingen, 1882. On the earliest 
German Mystics see Preger, Vorarbeiten z. einer Gesch. der deutschen Mystik (Zlschr. 
f. die hist. Theol. 1869, and several essays in the Abhandl. der hist. Klasse d. bayer. 
Akad. d. Wissensch., which, along with his comprehensive history of Mysticism, are 
rich sources of material). On Ruysbroek cf. Engelhardt, Rich. v. St. Victor und R. 
1838 ; on Thomas k Kempis ** de imitatione Christi " the literature is voluminous, cf. 
Hirsche, Prolegomena z. einer neuen Ausg. 2 vols. 1873-83, the same author on the 
Brothers of the Common Life in the R. -E '. In general : Denifle, Das geistliche 
Leben. Blumenlese aus den deutschen Mystikcrn und Gottesfreunden. 3. Aufl. 1880, 
A very full delineation of Mysticism is also given in Thomasius-Seeberg, D. -Gesch. 
2 Aufl. II. I pp. 261 ff., cf. also Seeberg, Ein Kampf um jenseitiges Leben. Lebens- 



CUAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. lOI 

In the three pre-Reformation centuries, the individual 
Catholic piety, which we call Mysticism, had in it only the 
difference represented by varieties. It was rooted in the 
Neoplatonic- Augustinian view of the first and last things, as this 
has been described above. Vol. V. p. io6 f. : God and the soul, the 
soul and its God ; the one and the many, God and the creature. 
The soul that has departed from God must return to Him by 
purification^ illumination^ and essential unification ; it must be 
" unformed," " formed," and " transfigured " (" entbildet," 
^'bildet," " uberbildet "). With their more definite and richer 
vision of the inwardly experienced. Mediaeval Saints spoke of the 
retirement of the soul within itself, of the contemplation of the 
outer world as a work of God, of the poverty and humility to 
which the soul must dispose itself, of conversion and return to 
God, and the school of suffering. But they also described the 
whole process in the most exact way. It begins with longing ; 
there follows the renunciation of the creaturely^ but also of al 
self-righteousness and all self-conceit That is the purification 
of the soul for true Christian poverty. What the Church offers 
in the shape of means — the Sacraments — must be used ; but all 
things must be taken up into the inner life. It is as sig^s of the 

bild eines mittelalterlichen Frommen., 1889. I give no extracts from the writings of 
the German Mediaeval Mystics, because I should like to avoid even seeming to counten* 
.ance the error that they expressed anything one cannot read in Origen, Plotinus, the 
Areopagite, Augustine, Erigena, Bernard and Thomas, or that they represented religious 
progress, while in respect of intrinsic Christian worth, their tractates really stand for 
the most part lower than the writings of Augustine and Bernard. The importance of 
those works rests in this, that they were written in German^ and that they were in- 
tended for the laity. They 'are therefore of inestimable value within the history of 
the German church and dogma. But in general history we may, and must, content 
ourselves with a characterisation. Whether, perhaps, they represent a considerable 
advance in the history of epistemology and metaphysic, is a question I do not trust 
myself to answer, nor does it fall to be considered here. As to the idea of regenera* 
tion, which is strongly emphasised in many Mystic writings, we must take in connection 
"with it the silence on forgiveness of sins, that we may see how even this idea stood 
under the ban of intellectualism. The ** clarification " which the Mysticism of the 
fourteenth century underwent in the fifteenth certainly related very specially to that 
aggressive intellectualism, so that the piety which expresses itself, for example, in the 
famous book de imitatione Christi (Thomas k Kempis) may be described as essentially 
Bemardine without Neoplatonic admixture, but yet only as Bernardine. A new, 
powerful element of joy in God, who forgives sin, and bestows &ith, is sought for in 
Tain. 



"~^- ~-?*J«.—»'.-JI»^ 



I02 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

love of God that they must be contemplated. And as formerly 
in Neoplatonism (cf. also Origen, and again the Areopagite) 
everything sensible on which the lustre of a sacred tradition 
rested, was highly esteemed as a sign of the eternal, and, there- 
fore, as a means of spiritual exaltation, so by this piety also,, 
sacred signs were not discarded, but were multiplied and 
increased. As the more recent investigations have shown us,^ in 
the centuries before the Reformation a growing value was 
attached, not only to the Sacraments, but to crosses, amulets,, 
relics, holy places, helpers of the needy, saints, etc. As long as 
what the soul seeks is not the rock of assurance, but means for 
inciting to piety, it will create for itself a thousand holy things* 
It is, therefore, an extremely superficial view that regards the 
most inward Mysticism and the service of idols as contradictory. 
The opposite view, rather, is correct ; such piety seeks for holy 
signs, and clings to them. It can at the same time hold 
redemption by Christ as the supreme, all-embracing proof of the 
love of God ; * but the sovereignty of Christ has not dawned 
upon it, because it really regards the supreme proof of love as 
the means by which the possibility of individual salvation is 
given, that is, the impulse towards imitation is strengthened* 
Just as little does the inward purification conflict with the 
sacramental, as mediated by the sacrament of penance. The 
Mystics rather, with dwindling exceptions, always directed 
attention, not to contrition merely, but to the whole confessional,, 
and to perfect repentance, that is, to the sacrament of penance^ 
After purification, there follows illumination. Here the 
Bernardine direction now comes in : there must be a being 
formed in Christ, and after Christ's image. In one's own 
experience, Christ's life of poverty and His suffering humanity 
must be reproduced, with a view to attaining to his Deity. It 
is well known how, in this direction, the tenderest training of the 

1 See the works of Gothein, Kolde, Kawerau, Haupt, and above all v. Bezold. 
(Gesch. der deutschen Reformation) on the inner state of Catholicism at the close of 
the fifteenth century. Succinct accounts in Lenz, Martin Luther, 1883 (introduction) 
and Karl MUUer, Bericht uber den gegenwartigen Stand, etc., 1887. 

2 There are several Mystics of the fourteenth century who, in many passages of their 
devotional writings, find their sole ground of comfort, as definitely as St. Bernard, in. 
the sufierings of Christ. 



CHAP. IL] the history OF PIETY. I03 

soul is combined with a distressingly sensuous presentation of 
the sufferings of the " man *' Jesus. Thit following of Christ that 
is prompted by compassion, the imitation of Him that has its 
spring in love — these are required to a degree that can be 
reached only by long practice, and by the most anxious strain- 
ing of every thought Not unfrequently, this imitation then 
becomes changed into the idea that one must become a 
Christ one's self, must travail anew in birth with Christ There 
were nuns, indeed, who fancied that they bore Christ in 
their womb. The highly-trained imagination^ and theory^ had 
equal parts in the production of this idea. The former — 
inasmuch as it actually experienced what it passionately 
contemplated ; the latter — inasmuch as in the Neoplatonic- 
Augustinian tradition there was contained that idea of God and 
the spiritual creature, according to which the appearance of the 
Logos in Christ was only a special case in a long series; with Him 
the indwelling of God in man took its beginning; and, besides 
this, all love of God is something so sovereign that it does not 
admit of the intermingling of a third in the relation to which it 
gives life. But, on the other hand, this view of Christ as the first 
in a series stood in agreement again with the view of His death 
as an extraordinary event that is the basis of reconciliation with 
God ; for, as this piety sacrifices no outward visible sign, so it 
surrenders also no part of the sacred history ; only, it allows no 
weight to it at the highest stage. Yet, at countless times in the 
case of the most distinguished Mystics, as already in the case of 
St Bernard, it is just at the highest stages of religious feeling 
that confidence in Christ asserts itself; for, as they derived 
everything from divine grace — especially where the theology of 
St Thomas exercised its influence — so this grace is discerned in 
the Christ who is our righteousness. Further, there was added 
here the trinitarian speculation, as it was developed from the 
thought oflove. Thus the piety shown by Richard of St Victor in 
the earlier period,by Bonaventura and others in the later, was able 
to attach itself most intimately to this intractable dogma of the 
Trinity, and also to the other dogma of the Incarnation. The 
infinite love must be contemplated in the Mystery of the Trinity, 
and the highest point of the spirit's enlightenment is reached 



IG4 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

when in prayer, in knowledge, and in vision, man becomes 
absorbed in the great mystery of the union of deity and 
humanity, and contemplates the indifference of opposites 
(indifferentia oppositorum), seeing how the Creator and the 
creature, the lofty and the lowly, the being and the not-being 
coalesce in one. From all these speculations, in which the old 
formulas are placed in the light of omnipotent love, in which the 
boldest and most complex theology is finally led back to the 
All-One, and converted into feelings there resulted an intense 
deepening of inner life. This inner life was again discoveredi 
and there was given to it the place of central command. But 
it found much richer expression still than in the days of 
Neoplatonism ; for, in those centuries before the Reformation, 
in conjunction with the most frightful self-torturing, nay in the 
midst of them (think of St. Elizabeth), and in conjunction with 
whimsical or insane ideas, the elevating power of suffering, and 
the purifying influence of pain, were proved by experience and 
preached. What an ennobling of feeling, and what a deepening 
of the life of the soul issued from this — a Renaissance before and 
alongside of the Renaissance — cannot be described. One must 
read the writings in poetry and prose, for example the verses 
of Jacopone,^ or the treatises and sermons of the German 
Mystics, to see how even the language here underwent a 
regeneration. A lyric poetry that awakens a response in us 
exists only from the thirteenth century, and what force the Latin 
and German tongues are capable of developing in describing the 
inner life we have been taught by the Mendicant Monks. From 
the discernment that lowliness and poverty, scorn and contempt, 
shame and misery, suffering and death, are aids to the saint's 
progress, from the contemplation of the Man Jesus, from com- 
passion, and pain, and humility, there sprang for Western 
Christianity, in the age of the Mendicant Monks, that inner 
elevation and that enrichment of feeling and of moral sensibility 
which was the condition for all that was to grow up in the time 
that followed. One speaks of the Renaissance and the 
Reformation, and comprehends in these words, taken together, 

^ See SchlUter u. Storck, Ausgewilhlte Gedichte Jacopone's, 1864. Thode, I.e. pp. 
398 ff. 



CHAP. IL] the history OF PIETY. lOj 

the basis of our present-day culture ; but both have a strong 
common root in the elevation of religious and aesthetic feeling 
in the period of the Mendicant Monks. 

But the Catholic character of this elevation shows itself most 
plainly in this, that with repentance, faith, and love to Christ, the 
process is not concluded : man must become entirely nothing ; 
he must pass out of himself, in order, finally, to be merged into 
the Godhead. There is meant by this, certainly, the highest 
spiritual freedom also (see, e.g,^ the " Deutsche Theologie ") ; but 
as the freedom is enfolded in the metaphysical thought that 
God is all and the individual nothing, freedom can only be con- 
ceived of as absorption into the deity. He alone can experience 
this union with God who has followed the way of the Church, 
and has been an imitator of Christ. But how can the command 
be given to adhere to the historical, when all the powers of the 
imagination have been let loose, and it has been declared the 
organ for coalescing with the Godhead. The Church Mystics 
made earnest attempts to check the pantheistic, " extravagant," 
wild-growing piety ; but they themselves frequently were at least 
incautious with their final directions, nay, to these the ardent ap- 
plication was wanting, so long as they had still respect to some- 
thing that lay outside of God and the soul (even the Trinity 
here was felt to be something disturbing ; the God with whom 
the soul has to do at this supreme height of exaltation is the 
solitary One). Thomas himself, " the normal dogmatic theol- 
ogian,*' gave the strongest impulse to this restoration of the most 
extravagant Mysticism. He was followed by Eckhart and 
others.^ According to Thomas, the soul can already here on 
earth so receive God into itself that it enjoys in the fullest sense 
the vision (visio) of His essence. It itself already dwells in 

1 Although, shortly before his death, Eckhart had retracted everything anecclesi- 
astical in his writings, two years after his death a process was instituted against him, 
x.e.y twenty-eight of his propositions were condemned, partly as heretical, and partly 
as open to suspicion (Bull of John XXII., 1329). On this condemnation, and on the 
relation of Suso to Eckhart, see Deniflein the Archiv. f. L.-u. K.-G. des Mittelalters 
II. and Seeberg, Ein Kampf um jenseitiges Leben. 1889, p. 137 ff. Even Suso 
could not quite escape the reproach of polluting the land with heretical filth. It was 
always the Ultra's, who, by making an appeal to them, brought discredit upon the 
*• Church " Mystics. 



c uiciiiuiiL. ranincisin is transtormcd intc 
divine is at bottom the capacit}' r)r the soul 
icipate itself from all that is phenomenal ; it 
>f spiritual freedom and exaltedness above 
>e thought. In this feeling, which arises as 
is only guarded by this co-efficient in its 
J of self-assertion, the soul has the sense of 
livine Being, who, in the Catholic view, is h 
ed by negative definitions. In these negj 
Mediaeval Mystics went much further than Ai 
►pagite.^ We must go back to Valentinus a 
ivOo^ (abyss), to the ^i-pj (silence) and the 
that is not), to find the fitting parallels t 
itance " (** Abgriindlichen Substanz "), the ' 
usten Gottheit"), the " Silent Silence" ("St 
his hot forciog-house of thought, religion 
ired, but the Mediaeval man had his sense of 
cened. In the Thomist Mysticism, which, o 
ts on principle that the essential distinctioi 
man must be recognised, both the whole f 
eme attainment are intellectually conditions 
e means of reaching spiritual freedom, and t 
ned is nothing but the natural result of the 
B riven in vision. V\(*rp' Thnmac nnA Uit^ * 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. lOJ 

tellect, apprehends the purely spiritual object, and so, also, as 
there is no longer any hindering restriction, coalesces with it. 
Yet in this conception of the contemplated end there was pre- 
supposed the Anselmic conviction, that all objects of faith here 
below can be made rational, so that the whole ascent to the 
Supreme end can take place through the intellect Where this 
conviction, however, became uncertain, then, if the final end of 
union to God was to be held as attainable in this world, it could 
no longer be contemplated as enjoyment of God and eternal 
life through the intellect. But this latter idea was unsatisfactory 
also for this reason, that the Thomists had to admit that the 
end thus described could always be reached only per raptum, 
ue,^ intermittently and seldom. Hence we see how, after the ap- 
pearance of Duns Scotus, and after the development of Nomin- 
alism, the end is otherwise described. The confidence in the 
rationality of the objects of faith threatens to disappear, on the 
other hand the religious impulse towards constant supreme fellow- 
ship with God grows stronger — therefore the enjoyment of God 
and eternal life came to be placed in the will^ which, in general^ 
indeed, had increased attention directed to it in Nominalist 
science.^ Salvation consists in union of will with Gody in the 
rest which the creaturely will finds in the will of God, that is, in 
surrender and repose. That this way of viewing things likewise 
found an eccentric expression was unavoidable from the monastic 
character of all Catholic piety. Yet a very marked advance was 
certainly made here, which directly prepared the way for the 
Reformation ; for, first, piety was now delivered from inter- 
mixture with those speculative monstrosities, which really served 
only to stupefy simple devout feeling (of course the speculative 
philosophers will always prefer Thomas to Duns) ; second, a way 
was indicated by which the soul might attain to the feeling 
of constant fellowship with God. This " Nominalist " Mysticism 
tended more and more to supplant the Thomist in the 15th 
century.^ One must give up his own will to the will of God. 

iTo this distinction between the Thomist and the Quietist (Nominalist) Mysticism 
Ritschl was the first to point, see Gesch. des Pietismus I., p. 467 ff., and Zeitschr. f. 
K.-Gesch. IV., p. 337 ff ; also already in the first vol. of Rechtfertig. u. Versohn.- 
Lehre. 

3 About 1500 it seems to have gained the ascendency ; cf. the attitude of Staupitz 



fCJhHMiH 



I08 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

The Nominalists themselves, certainly, failed to see clearly where 
the divine will is to be sought for, and what it is, and just on 
that account much wild growth still developed itself even here. 
But only within Nominalist piety could the question about 
assurance of salvation (certitudo salutis) arise, because there 
was no longer a building upon the intellect, because the pointing 
to bare authority was bound, in the course of time, to be felt un- 
satisfactory, and because the problem was correctly stated, as 
being the question, namely, about the power that is capable of 
breaking self-will and leading the will to God.^ 

This revival of piety from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth 
would not be perfectly described were not a fact, at the same time, 
strongly emphasised, which, on first view, seems very paradoxi- 

and Thomas Mlinzer. Even the ** German Theol(^," of which Luther was so fond, 
is quietistic 

^ In the section on the history of theology the characteristics and significance of 
Nominalism will receive a still further illustration. Meanwhile, however, let it be 
noted here, that by its " positiveness," based on mere authority, Nominalism pur- 
chased its truer insight into the nature of religion at a heavy cost. Here Anselm and 
Thomas undoubtedly hold a higher position ; but these men were hindered by their 
intellectualism from doing justice to the Christian religion as m historic magnittide and 
force. What I have set forth in these pages (p. 97 ff.) has been keenly assailed by 
Lasson and RafTaele Mariano. Plainly enough they put before me the alternative of 
irreligious criticism or blind faith (Kohlerglauben), when on their side they claim for 
the Thomist Mysticism that it is the only form of religion in which faith and thought, 
history and religious independence, are reconciled. It must be the endeavour of each 
of us to find something in his own way. What we have ultimately to do with here is 
the great problem as to what history and the person of Christ are in religion, and 
then there is the other problem also as to whether religion is contemplation or some- 
thing more serious. That the end to which our striving is directed is the same — the 
seeking, finding, and keeping hold of God — maybe confidently granted on both sides. 
But my opponents have an easier position than I have : they can prove — ^and I re- 
cognise this proof^that the piety that culminates in Mysticism and the old ecclesi- 
astical dogma hang together, atui they can at the same time let the question rest as to 
what reality of fact answers to the dogma. That is to say, the dogma renders them 
the best services, just when they are at liberty to contemplate it as a mobile and 
elastic magnitude, which hovers between the poles of an inferior actuality and that 
** highest," which can never have been actual as earthly : out of the darkness there is 
a pressing forward to the light ; luminous clouds show the path / But I seek in the 
dogma itself of the Christian Church for something concrete, namely the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ as the Lord. The tradition which the dogma represents is treated with 
more respect when it is criticised and sifted, than when one takes it as it is, in order 
ultimately to bid it a secret farewell, i.e.^ to substitute for it something quite different 
— ^namely the idea. 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. IO9 

cal, namely, the revival of a life of practical activity in tlu ser- 
vice of on^s neighbour. We should think that where Catholic 
piety, i,e,t Mysticism, flourished, monastic contemplation and as- 
ceticism would repress everything else.^ In point of fact, there 
was a weighty problem for that piety here. Yet the way in 
which it was solved shows again most distinctly that in the 
Mendicant Order movement we have to do with a reformation of 
the Church. This movement strengfthened, theoretically, the 
old Catholic position, that the contemplative life is higher than 
the practical. But as it presents itself in St. Francis as a move- 
ment born of love, so also from the first, as " imitation of the poor 
life of Jesus," and as " Apostolic life," it recognised in loving 
activity tlu highest sphere for its exercise. In this way the old 
Monasticism was superseded, which rendered services of love 
only to the hierarchy, the princes and the papal policy, but 
otherwise retired within itself, and felt service to a poor brother 
to be a work of supererogation. It was the Mendicant Orders 
and their theologians who first gave a conspicuous place again 
to the command, " Love thy neighbour as thyself*' They 
praised the contemplative life; they still continued always to 
maintain the distinction between it and the practical ; but they 
drew this distinction in such a way that one living in con- 
templation (that is, the monk) was, nevertheless, required to 
serve his neighbour with all his powers, while the Christian oc- 
cupied with the affairs of life, was never justified in leaving out 
of account concern for his brother. Thus there came to exist 
between the contemplative and active lives a wide neutral pro- 
vince, so to speak, which belonged to both, to the former as well 
as to the latter — the province of self-denying love. The love of 
God on the part of monk and layman could prove its existence 
only in the love of one's neighbour. Hence it is to be under- 
stood how enthusiastic Mystics used expressions that sound like 
an exaltation of the active life above the contemplative ; what 
they had in their mind was unfeigned brotherly love, mercy> 
gentleness, the spirit that returns good for evil, and active 

1 On the relation of Metaphysic to Asceticism, or, say, of Mysticism, to Asceticism^ 
see the dissertation of Bender in the Archiv. f. Gesch. der Pbiios. voL 6, pp. i AT., 
208 ff., 301 it 



I lO HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

ministration to need. Neither their " intellectuah'sm *' nor their 
^* quietism " hindered them in their powerful preaching of mercy, 
but rather strengthened them in it ; for they would no longer re- 
cognise any monachism, or any service of God, that disregarded 
the service of one's neighbour. The obligation to make one's self 
every man's servant in love was first plainly asserted again by 
Francis, and after him it was repeatedly enforced as the highest 
attainment of Christian life by Thomas and Bonaventura, by 
Eckhart, Suso, Tauler, Thomas i Kempis, and all the hundred 
active witnesses to Christian piety in the centuries before the 
Reformation.^ The simple relation of man to man, sanctified by 
the Christian command of love and by the peace of God, issued 
forth from all the traditional corporations and castes of the 
Middle Ages, and set itself to break them up. Here, also, the ad- 
vent of a new age, in which, certainly, only a few blossoms de- 
veloped into fruit, was brought about by the history of piety. 
But this piety, although it always continued to call more loudly 
for reform in the affairs of the Church, still remained under the 
ban of the idea that God gives grace in the measure in which a 
man progresses in love. How this state of things was to be 
remedied, no one had any inkling. 

In what precedes it has already been indicated several times 
that, while maintaining the line of distinction, the Mendicant 
Orders brought about inwardly (to some extent even outwardly) a 
mutual approximation of monks and laity. The activity of the 
former among the people on the one hand, and the awakening 
of a strong religious life among the laity on the other, brought 
them together. But it was in general the characteristic of the 
period under review, that the laity always came more to the 
front, and in the fifteenth century they took their place in their free 
religious associations alongside the monks in theirs, though, 
no doubt, as a rule, there was dependence on the monastic 
unions. The period from 1046 to 1200 was the period of the 
monachising of the priests ; that from 1 200 to 1 500 brought the 
monachising of the laity (notice, also, the participation of women 
in the Mystic and charitable movements) ; but the latter process 

* With Eckhart the direction originated to let even ecstacy go, though it should be 
as great as that of Paul, if one can help a poor man even with a sop. 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 1 1 1 

was not carried out without a deeply penetrating alteration of 
Monachism, and it is to be observed that the charitable element 
was here determinative. When, in spite of earnest reforms, the 
Mendicant Orders were now, nevertheless, unable (from the end 
of the fourteenth cen tury ) ful ly to recover the position and confidence 
they had once enjoyed, the free Christian associations came quite 
into the foreground. But they secured, if I see aright, a large 
measure of influence only on German soil. What they did for 
the German was done for the Romanic peoples, naturally more 
mobile, but less susceptible of abiding impressions, by the great 
Preachers of Repentance^ of whom there was no lack among them 
at any period, from the time of Francis to that of Savonarola, 
and who, along with their preaching of repentance, knew also 
how to stir national and political feeling. But it was only the 
Anglo-Saxons and the Czechs, hitherto kept in subjection and 
poverty by other nations, who understood, at this period, how to 
derive from the Franciscan doctrine of poverty a politico-national 
and an ecclesiastical programme, and among whom a great 
movement took place, in which the rise to independent piety 
united itself with a national rise and emancipation. In both 
countries the result, certainly, did not correspond with the first 
steps. In England, the movement ran its course comparatively 
quickly, and in Bohemia deeper religious motives were unable to 
hold their ground alongside the national and political aims im- 
periously asserting themselves, and at first, at least, were over- 
borne by motives of an ecclesiastical, a social revolutionary, and 
an anti-hierarchical character, though afterwards the religious 
element wrought its way to the front again. 

Any one, therefore, wishing to describe the stages in the his- 
tory of piety during this period, must begin, by way of introduc- 
tion, with a view of the Lyonnese, Lombard and Catholic 
" Poor." Then follows the establishment of the Mendicant 
Orders, who, by developing the principle of poverty, the apos- 
tolic life and repentance, as well as by preaching love (caritas) 
raise monachism to its highest point, and free it from its re- 
strictions, but at the same time impart to it a most powerful 
influence upon the lay world. The Church succeeds in taking 
this movement into its service, in creating by means of it an 



112 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

interest in Church institutions among the aspiring lay Christian- 
ity, and in placing a check upon heresy. The Mendicant 
Qrders made themselves masters of all the forces of the Church ; 
above all, they developed more deeply the individual Mystic 
piety, by grasping more firmly its old fundamental elements, 
poverty and obedience, adding to these love, and gave it a 
powerful force of attraction, which united itself to the aspiring 
individualism and trained it By urgent preaching of repent- 
ance, which pointed to future judgment, even the widest circles 
were stirred, and the new movement settled down, in part, into 
monk-like associations (the third Order), But the principle of 
" poverty " embraced not only an ascetically religious, but also 
a social and anti-hierarchical, nay, even a political ideal, for the 
neutral state could be regarded as the power that had to de- 
prive the Church of her property, or, in the event of her being 
recalcitrant, to execute judgment upon her. The new move- 
ment united itself therefore with the apocalyptic ideas, which, 
in spite of Augustine, had never died out in the West, and 
which had received a new development from Joachim and his 
following.^ Partly within the Order, and partly beyond it, an 
apocalyptic socio-political excitement grew up, asserting itself 
in a hundred different ways. Its relative justification over 
against the rich worldly hierarchy was furnished by the wide 
hold which it everywhere secured for itself : it made its appear- 
ance in all lands, and it continued to exist, always again gather- 
ing new strength, till far on in the period of the Reformation. 
In the second half of the thirteenth century the Mendicant 
Orders reached, at least in the Romanic lands, their highest 
point of influence. From that time they began to decline : 
after the close of the century the movement as a whole was 
broken up and distributed among the efforts of individual men. 
The great struggle about poverty in the age of John XXI I. 
had, so far as it was religious^ only a limited importance. In 
Germany, on the other hand, there began, from the end of the 

1 See Wadstein, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe in den Hauptmomenten ihrer 
christlich-mittelalterlichen Gesammtentwickelung, 1896. The details of these ideas 
scarcely belong to the history of theology, not to speak of the history of dogma ; but 
as was the case with the ideas about the devil, they exercised a very strong influence. 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. II 3 

thirteenth century, the "German " Mystic movement, i,e,, the 
introduction of the impassioned individual piety of the monastic 
theologians into the circles of the laity. For a century and 
more, the work of bringing about an inward conversion of the 
laity in Germany was carried on, and it was quite specially by 
Mendicant monks, chiefly Dominican, that this service was 
rendered. (David of Augsburg, Theodoric of Freiburg, Master 
Eckhart, Tauler, Merswin, the " Friends of God," Suso, Henry 
of Nordlingen, Margaret Ebner, Ruysbroek, etc.) 

While in the Romanic lands the Mendicant Orders grew 
weaker, and in Germany the religious life, still through their 
influence partly, slowly advanced, the world-ruling Church pur- 
sued a course of complete self-abandonment at Avignon, and 
seemed to have the deliberate wish to subject the ecclesiastical 
fidelity of the already imperilled piety to the severest test. 
Nay, how firmly the papacy and the Church as an institution 
still held together souls and the world is shown by the confu- 
sions and complaints which, when the great schism ensued, 
became still more numerous. Under the impression produced 
by frightful elemental calamities, the apocalyptic, anti-hier- 
archical ideas became the real danger, especially as even 
Mendicant monks were regarded as enemies of the papacy. 
But only in England did a great movement at that time result 
The law of God, poverty, the Augustinian theology — these were 
the dominant ideas under which Wyclif undertook his Catholic 
reform and preached to the reigning Church judgment and 
repentance — a second Francis, of more understanding but less 
resolute, more cautious but less free. Beyond England at first 
no similar movement was anywhere to be traced ; but it was 
everywhere apparent that the world had entered upon a religious 
age, in which the multiplicity of aspirations testified that the 
dissolution of what existed at the time was felt to be the signal 
for a new construction — the ridicule and frivolity of some Italian 
poets and novelists of an inferior order have no claim whatever 
to be considered. In its greatest representatives, the Renais- 
sance, especially the German, which was much more important 
in the realm of thought than the Italian, felt that it had out- 
grown neither the Catholic Church nor the Christian religion. 

H 



1 14 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. H. 

What was really breaking up was mediseval society^ mediaeval 
institutianSy the mediaeval world} So far as the Church was 
interwoven with this last, nay, constituted the chief part of it, 
and in this form had hitherto been held as holy — a state of 
things on which the Mendicant Orders had been able to work 
no change — the crisis was already prepared. But there was no 
proclaiming of separation from the Church ; there was a seek- 
ing for means for politically reforming it (this almost alone was 
the question at the Reform Councils), and monachism also took 
itself seriously to task.* From the end of the fourteenth cen- 
tury till the time of the Reformation there was a continuous 
succession of efficient reforms in the older Orders and in the 
younger, of course on the basis already laid. If the signs do 
not mislead, the Mendicant Orders in particular rose higher 
again in the course of the fifteenth century and gained an 
always increasing influence on popular circles, in the Romanic 
lands through the occasional appearing of preachers of repent- 
ance, in Germany through earnest, steady work. But it is cer- 
tainly unmistakable that all this did not yet give satisfaction 
and rest The proof of this lies — apart from other sectarian 
agitations — in the fact that the Wyclifite movement, which in 
literary form had crept in among the Czechs, who were already 
deeply infected with apocalyptic excitement and Franciscan 
fanaticism, could strike its roots so deeply in Bohemia under 
Huss, and could occasion so terrible a revolution, a revolution 
that shook the half of Germany. From the confused inter- 
mingling of "religious, social, national, Joachim-apocalyptic, 
chiliastic, specifically Wyclifite and Waldensian tendencies, 
thoughts, hopes and dreams," individuals gathered out what 
appealed to them. All shades were represented, from the wild 

^ See Lamprecht, Zum Verstandniss der wirthschaftlichen und Socialen Wandlungen 
in Deutschland vom 14. zum 16. Jahrh., in the Ztschr. f. Social-und Wirtlischaft- 
gesch. I., 2. 3, pp. 191-263. The significance of the state of the towns is specially 
to be observed (see the works by Schmoller). 

2 Hofler, Die Romanische Welt und ihr Verhaltniss zu den Reformideen des 
Mittelalters, 1878. Maurenbrechcr, Gesch. d. Kathol. Reformation I., 1880. Kolde. 
Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, 1879. Dittrich, BeitrSge z. Gesch. der 
Kathol. Reform im I. Drittel des 16. Jahrh. I. u. II. (Gorres-gesellsch.-Jahrbuch V. 
J884. p. 319 ff., Vll. 1886, p. I E). 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. IIS 

warriors of God, who inflicted judgment with fire and sword on 
the Church and on all despisers of divine law, to the quiet 
brothers, who really judged the Church as hardly, and clung to 
as Utopian hopes regarding the adjustment of human relation- 
ships, but who were willing to wait in patience and quiet- 
ness. In the fifteenth century the currents of all foregoing 
attempts at reform flowed together ; they could converge into 
one channel ; for all of them sprang originally from one 
source — the doctrine of poverty, wedded to apocalyptic 
and to certain Augustinian thoughts, that is, Catholicism. 
" Silent and soft is poverty's step," Jacopone had once sung 
in his wonderful hymn. That was truly no prophecy of the 
future. 

Even after the papacy, by an unparalleled diplomacy, had 
released itself from the oppressive requirements of the Reform 
Councils, when the nations were defrauded of the sure prospect 
of a reform of the Church, when the Popes, with their great 
undertaking of securing a sovereign state, descended to the 
lowest depths of degradation and spoke of reform with scorn, 
piety as a rule did not lose faith in the Churchy but only in her 
representation at the time, and in her corrupt order. It is a 
mistake to conclude from the contempt for priests and for lazy 
monks to the existence of an evangelical spirit. There can 
express itself in such contempt the purest and most obedient 
Catholic piety. This piety displayed in the second half of the 
fifteenth century a strength of vigorous impulse, in some 
measure even a power, greater than ever before. And it re- 
mained immovably the old piety. It attracted the laity more 
powerfully ; it became richer in good works and in the spirit of 
love ; it united clergy and laity in common religious under- 
takings ; it wrought for the deepening and strengthening of the 
inner life. But just on these grounds it attached higher value 
to outward signs, sought for them, increased their number, and 
gave itself up to them. One may detect in this something of 
unrest, of dissatisfaction ; but we must not forget that this is 
just what belongs to Catholic piety. This piety seeks, not for 
a basis of rock, but for means of help^ and even where it is most 
inward, and seems to have bidden farewell to everything ex- 



Il6 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

ternal, it must confess that, openly or secretly, it still uses the 
narcotics and stimulants. 

An enormous revolution, ever again retarded, was preparing 
in the fifteenth century. But this revolution threatened institu- 
tions^ political and ecclesiastical ; threatened the Church, not its 
gospel, the new dogma-like doctrines, not the old dogma. 
That a reformation of piety in the sense ol faith was preparing, 
is suggested by nothing whatever that is historically apprehen- 
sible ; for the most radical opponents, and the most faithful 
supporters, of the dominant Church, were at one in this, that 
the forces for a reform of the ecclesiastical life were bound up 
in Augustine and Francis. The Church doctrines that became 
the subject of controversy were really no Church doctrines as 
yet ; ^ and then again — even the most radical Church pro- 
gramme had its strong roots, and its justifying title, in elements 
of the vulgar Church doctrine. Thus dogma remained sub- 
stantially unassailed. How could anyone imagine, in the age 
of Nominalism, that the salvation by reform must come from 
doctrine^ so long as the authority of the dogmatic tradition 
remained untouched ? And yet, certainly, it would be a very 
childish view that would regard the Reformation as something 
absolutely new, because no direct preparatory stages of it can 
be pointed out. Individualism, the force of personal life, the 
irresistible demands for a reconstruction of civil life and social 
order, the needs of a piety always growing more restless, the 
distrust of the hierarchy, the rising consciousness of personal 
responsibility and craving for personal certainty, the conviction 

hat Christ is in His Church, and yet that He is not in ecclesi- 
asticism — all these things could not have reached the ends 
contemplated by them without a Reformation, which, to outward 
view, appeared less radical than the programme of the devastat- 
ing and burning Hussites, but in reality left that programme far 
behind it And the piety, /.^., the ecclesiastical faith itself, had^ 
among the manifold elements it included, the new element im- 
planted within it, in the shape of words of Christ and doctrines 

1 The doctrines of indulgence, of the hierarchy, of free will, etc. Certainly there 
was opposition also to some old traditional doctrines (eternal damnation, purgatory^ 
etc.), but it was not thorough-going. 



CHAP. II.] THE HISTORY OF PIETY. 117 

of Paul, in the life displayed by every Christian who, through 
trust in the grace of God in Christ, had found inward deliverance 
from the law of grace-dispensations and merit, and from the 
law of the letter. 

Under a theology that had degenerated into a tangled brake, 
from the hundreds of new religious-ecclesiastical institutions, 
societies, and brotherhoods, from the countless forms in which 
the sacred was embodied and sought after, from the sermons 
and the devotional literature of all kinds, there was to be heard 
one call, distinct and ever more distinct — the call to vigorous 
religious life, to practical Christianity, to the religion that is 
really religion. " Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation " — this 
prayer of Augustine was the hidden force of the unrest among 
the nations, especially the Germanic, in the fifteenth century. 
Dogmatically expressed : there was a seeking for a sure doc- 
trine of salvation ; but one knew not himself what he sought 
for. The uncertain and hesitating questions got only uncertain 
and hesitating answers. Even at the present day we cannot 
escape the charm that clings just to such questions and answers ; 
for they let us see into the living movement of the heart ; but 
he for whom religion has become so serious a matter that he 
seeks, not for charms, but for nourishment, will not be inclined 
to exchange Luther's Smaller Catechism and his hymns for all 
the wealth, beauty, and freshness of the German devotional 
literature of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.^ 

1 What is here said applies also to Gothic architecture. It is certainly the greatest, 
most perfect, and most harmonious product of architectural art since the time of the 
Greek temple ; indeed, it is the only style that is all-pervasive, and that embraces all 
in unity, as the Greek temple style does. In itself it proves that the mediaeval period 
at its highest point of attainment possessed a harmonious culture which of its kind 
was perfect. But just on that account the Gothic is the style of mediaeval Catholic 
Christianity, the style of Mysticism and Scholasticism. It awakens exactly the 
feelings, emotions, and sensations of awe which the Catholic piety, of which it is 
bom, seeks to produce ; jubt on that account also it is of Romanic origin, and the 
history of its spread is simply a parallel to the history of the spread of Romanic 
piety. Perhaps the deepest thing that can be said about the Gothic, about its 
ineffable charm and its aesthetic impressiveness — though at the same time it suggests 
the inevitable reaction of Protestant piety against it — has been put into words by 
Goethe in his Wahlverwandschaften (Hempel's edition, XV., pp. 143, 137, 173) : 
«* , . . She sat down in one of the seats (in a Gothic chapel), and it seemed to 
her, as she looked up and around, as if she was, and yet was not, as if she realised 



U8 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 



2. On the History of Ecclesiastical Law, — T/ie Doctrine of 

the Church. 

" In the fifty years that elapsed between the appearing of the 
Gratian book of laws (which contains, besides the Isodorian, 
numerous forgeries of the Gregorian Deusdedit, Anselm and 
Cardinal Gregorius) and the pontificate of Innocent III., the 
papal system achieved for itself complete supremacy. In the 
Roman Courts justice was dispensed according to Gratian's 
law, in Bologna the teaching was regulated thereby, even the 
Emperor Frederick L already had his son, Henry VI., instructed 
in the Decretum and in Roman law. The whole decretal 
legislation from 1159 to 1320 was framed on the basis of 
Gratian, and presupposes him. The same holds good of the 
dogmatic of Thomas in the relative material, while the scholastic 
dogmatic in general was made entirely dependent in questions 
of Church constitution on the favourite science of the clergy at 
the time, namely, jurisprudence, as it had been drawn up by 
Gratian, Raymund, and the other collectors of decretals. The 

her identity and yet realised it not, as if all this that was before her was to vanish 
from her and she from herself, and only when the sun passed from the hitherto very 
brightly illumined (stained glass) window did she awake.*' ** From all figures there 
looks forth only the purest existence ; all must be pronounced, if not noble, at least 
good. Cheerful coUectedness, ready recognition of something above us to be 
reverenced, quiet self-devotion in love and expectant waiting, are expressed in all 
faces, in all attitudes. The aged man with the bald head, the boy with the curly 
locks, the sprightly youth, the grave-minded man, the glorified saint, the hovering 
angel, all seem to know the bliss of an innocent satisfaction, of a devout expectancy. 
The commonest thing that happens has a touch of heavenly life about it, and an act 
of divine service seems perfectly adapted to every nature. For such a religion most 
men look as for a vanished golden age, a lost paradise." But on the other hand : 
** As for myself, this mutual approximation and intermingling of the sacred and the 
sensuous is certainly not to my liking ; I am not pleased when people set apart and 
consecrate and adorn certain special places, that thereby alone they may foster and 
maintain the feeling of piety. No surroundings, not even the commonest, should 
disturb the feeling in us of the divine, which can accompany us everywhere, and 
make every place a consecrated temple. I would like to see an important religious 
service held in the saloon, where people usually take food, gather for social inter- 
course, and enjoy themselves with games and dancing. The highest, the most 
excellent thing, in man is formless, and we must guard against giving it shape in 
anything save noble deeds." 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. II9 

theory, as well as the texts and proofs relating thereto, were 
derived by the theologians from these collections of laws."^ 
With regard to the nature of the Church, while the Augustinian 
definition was firmly retained, that the Church is the community 
of believers or of the predestinated, the idea was always gaining 
a fuller acceptance that the hierarchy is the Church, and that 
the Pope, as successor of Peter, and episcopus universalis, unites 
in himself all the powers of the Church. The German Kings 
themselves were in great part to blame for this development, for 
while they, and, above all, the Hohenstaufens, led the struggle 
for the rights of the State against the papacy, they left the 
latter to its own irresponsible action in the ecclesiastical domain. 
Only when it was now too late did Frederick II. point out in 
his address to the Kings of the Franks and Angles (ad reges 
Francorum et Anglorum) that the hierarchy must be restored 
by an inner reform to its original poverty and humility.* In its 
development to autocratic supremacy within the Church and 
the Churches, a check was put upon the papacy from the 
beginning of the fourteenth century only from France.' 

We cannot be required to show here what particular conclusions 
were drawn by the Popes and their friends from the idea of the 
Church as a civil organism of law in the thirteenth century and 
in the first half of the fourteenth, and in what measure these 
conclusions were practically carried out The leading thoughts 
were the following: (i) The hierarchical organisation is 
essential to the Churchy and in all respects the Christianity of 
the laity is dependent on the mediation of tfie priests (" properly 
ordained "), who alone can perform ecclesiastical acts. When 
we pass from Cyprian to Gregory I., from the latter to 
Pseudoisidore and Gregory VII., we might conclude on super- 
ficial consideration that the principle just stated had Idng been 
determinative. But when we enter into detail, and take into 

1 See Janus, p. 162 f. 

s See the passage in Gieseler II., 2, 4 ed. p, 153. 

t The ''pragmatic sanction" of Louis the Holy is a forgery of the year 1438 (or 
about this time), as SchefTer-Boichorst has shown in the Kleinere Forsch. z. Gesch. 
des Mittelalters (Mitth. des Instituts f, osterreich. Geschichtsforschung VIII. , Bd. 3 
part ; published separately, 1887). In the first edition of this work I had slill treated 
this sanction as genuine, but my attention was immediately directed to the mistake. 



I20 HISTORY OF DOGMA* [CHAP. IL 

account the ecclesiastical legislation from the time of Innocent 
IIL, we observe how much was still wanting to a strict applica- 
tion of it in theory and practice till the end of the twelfth 
century. Only from the time of the fourth Lateran Council was 
full effect given to it, expressly in opposition to the Catharist 
and Waldensian parties.^ (2) The sacramental and judicial 
powers of the priests are independent of their personal worthiness. 
This also was an old principle ; but after having been long 
latent, it was now strongly emphasised, asserted in opposition 
to all " heretical " parties, and so turned to account that by it 
the hierarchy protected themselves against all demand for 
reform, and, above all, evaded the appeal to resume the 
apostolic life. Whoever returned from the " heretical " parties 
to the bosom of the Church was required to declare that he re- 
cognised the celebration of Sacraments by sinful priests.* 
(3) The Church is a visible community with a constitution given 
to it by Christ (even as such it is the body of Christ [corpus 
Christi]) ; as a visible^ constituted community it has a double power ^ 
namely^ the potestas spiritualis and the potestas temporalis 
(spiritual and temporal power). Through both is ity as it shall 
endure till the end of the worlds superior to the transitory states^ 
which are subordinate to it. To ity thereforCy must all states and 
all individuals be obedient de necessitate salutis (as a necessary 
condition of salvation) ; nayy the power of the Church extends 
itself even to heretics^ and luatlien.^ Even these principles ^ have 
their root in the Augustinian doctrine of the Church ; ® but 

1 See especially the first and third decrees of the Synod; Mansi XXII., p. 982 sq., 
Hefele V., p. 879 ff. It was not, however, carried out to its full logical issue, as is 
shown by the admission of the right of the laity to baptise in case of emergency, by 
the recognition of absolution by a layman in casu mortis, and by the treatment of 
the sacrament of marriage. 

' See e,g, the confession of Durandus, Innocent IIL, ep. XI. 196. 

' On the Inquisition, see Janus, p. 254 ff., and Thomas, Summa Sec. Sec. quxst. 
II art. 3 conclusio: "Haeresis est peccatum, per quod meruerunt per mortem a 
mundo excludi " ; art. 4 concl. 

^ Augustinus Triumphus (ob. 1328), Summa de potest, eccl. ad Johannem XXII., 
Quaest. 23 art. I : *' Pagani jure sunt sub papse obedientia." Yet this continued a 
controverted question in spite of the Bull " Unam sanctam." 

^ The hierarchy together with the monks are held as properly the Church. 

' There were certainly also passages to be found in Augustine that could be 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 121 

from the logical expression and thorough-going application 
which they received between 1050 and 1300, they present the 
appearance of an unheard-of innovation. They obtained their 
complete formulation from Boniface VIIL;^ but long before 
him the Popes acted according to these principles. The worst 
consequence was not the undervaluing,* repression and serious 
deterioration of civic life (here, on the contrary, there can be 
discerned also many salutary effects in the interests of popular 
freedom), but the inevitable profanation of religion, inasmuch as 
all its aims and benefits were perverted and falsified through 
the light being foreign to them in which they presented them- 
selves from the standpoint of Church law ; and obedience to an 
external human institution, that was subject to all errors of 
human passion and sin, was raised to the first condition of 
Christian life. " It was this Church on which there fell that 
heaviest responsibility that has ever been incurred in history : 
by all violent means it applied as pure truth a doctrine that was 
vitiated and distorted to serve its omnipotence, and under the 
feeling of its inviolability abandoned itself to the gravest im- 
morality ; in order to maintain itself in such a position, it 
struck deadly blows at the spirit and conscience of the nations, 
and drove many of the more highly gifted, who had secretly 
withdrawn from it, into the arms of unbelief and embitterment" ' 
(4) To tfu Church has been given, by Christ, a strictly 
fnonarchical constitution in His representative, t/ie successor of 
Peter, the Roman Bishop. Not only is all that is valid with 
regard to tlu hierarchy valid in the first instance of the Pope, but 

employed against the Gregorian claims of the Church, v. Mirbt. Die Stellung 
Augustin*s in der Publicistik des Gregor. Kirchenstreits, 1888. 

^ See note 2 on p. 122. 

' Gregory VII. carried to the furthest extreme the opposition to the evangelical 
doctrine that the powers that be are ordained of God; see epp. VIII. 21: "Quis 
nesciat, reges et duces ab iis habuisse principium, qui deum ignorantes, superbia, 
rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo universis psene sceleribus, mundi principe 
diabolo videlicet agitante, dominari caeca cupiditate et intolerabili prsesumptione 
affectavemnt" But even according to Innocent III., the State arose '*(>er 
extorsionem humanam." On the other hand, even the strictest papalists, indeed 
Gregory VII. himself, were not clear as to the limits between civil and ecclesiastical 
power. 

' Burckhardt, Kultur der Renaissance, 3. ed. 2. vol., p. 228. 



122 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. II. 

to him all powers are committed^ and t/te other members of the 
hierarchy are only ctiosen in partem solicitudinis (for purposes of 
oversight). He is the episcopus universalis (universal bishop) ; to 
him belongs therefore, both swords^ and as every Christian can 
attain salvation only in the Churchy as the Church, however, is the 
hierarchy, and the hierarchy the Pope, it follows that de necessitate 
salutis all the world must be subject to the Pope, In numerous 
letters these principles had already been maintained by Gregory 

VII. in a way that could not be out- vied (cf. also the so-called 
dictatus Gregorii). Yet in his case everything appears as the 
outflow of a powerful dominating personality, which, in a 
terrible conflict, grasps at the extremest measures. In the 
period that followed, however, his principles were not only 
expressed, but were effectively applied, and, at the same time, as 
the result of a marvellous series of forgeries, were believingly 
accepted even by those who felt obliged to combat the papacy. 
At the time when the papacy saw itself confronted with a weak 
imperial power in the West, and with a still weaker Latin 
Empire in the East, this view of things established itself (from 
the time of Innocent III. onward) in the souls and minds of 
men. So far as I know, Thomas was the first to state the 
position rouildly in the formula : "(ostenditur etiam), quod 
subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis " (it is also 
shown that to be subject to the Roman pontiff" is essential to 
salvation).^ Then the whole theory was summed up in a form 
not to be surpassed in the Bull " Unam sanctam " of Boniface 

VIII. (1302), after the Popes for a whole century had strictly 
followed it in hundreds of small and great questions (questions 
of Church policy, of civil policy, of diocesan administration^ 
etc.), and were in a position for daring to disregard all protests.* 

1 Opusc. c. err. Grsec. fol. 9. The Roman law was in general paraded in an 
extravagant way before the weak Greeks in the thirteenth century, and that had a 
reflex influence on the West. 

^ The most important sentences of the Bull ran thus : " Unam sanctam ecclesiam 
Catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque 
hanc firmiter cfedimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nee salus est nee 
remissio peccatorum (the Church is now spiritually described with its head, Christ). 
Igitur ecclesiae unius et unioe unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita, quasi 
monstrum, Christus videlicet et Christi vicarius Petrus Petrique successor (there 



LP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 125 

I setting up of strict monarchical power and the destruction 
he old Church constitution is represented in three stages by 
udo Isidore, Gratian, and the Mendicant Orders; for the latter^ 
mgh the special rights which they received, completely 
(ce up the local powers (bishops, presbyteries, parish priests)i. 
were subject entirely to papal direction.^ All the premises 
(I which there necessarily followed the infallibility of the 

w^sjohn XXL, i6; here the oves universse were entrusted to Peter). In hac 
ue potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et teraporalem, evangelicis 
( instruimur. Nam dicentibus apostolis : ecce gladii duo hie (Luke XXII. 38) in 
sia scilicet, cum apostoli loquerentur, non respondit dominus nimis esse, sed 
Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, male verbum 
dit domini proferentis ; converte gladium tuum in vaginam (Matt. XXVI. 5^).^ 
que ergo esc in potestate ecclesiae, spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis. Sed 
idem pro ecclesia, ille vero ab ecclesia exercendus. Ille sacerdotis, ille manu 
n et militum, sgd adnutum et patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse- 
ladio et temporalem potestatem spirituali subici potestati,nam cum dicat apostolus 
e follows Rom. XIII. i) . . . non ordinatse essent, nisi gladius esset sub gladio 
spiritual power trancends in dignity and nobility all earthly power as much as 
ipiritual the eaithly). Nam veritate testante spiritualis potestas terrenam 
fatem instituere " (is it literally institute ? or institute in the sense of religious 
aeration ? or instruct ? In view of the immediately following ** judicare," and of 
entence of Hugo St 4 Victor, which is here the source, the first meaning is the 

probable ; Finke [Rom. Quartalschrift 4. Supplementheft, 1896, p. 40] is 
led to adopt the second) " Aadet et judicare, si bona non fuerit (there follows 
Q. 1. 10). Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali, sed 
:viat spiritualis minor, a suo superior!, si vero suprema, a solo deo, non ab 
ne poterit judicari, testante apostolo (i Cor. 11. 25). Est autem haec auctoritas» 
lata sit homini et exerceatur per hominem, non humana sed potius divina, ore 
o Petro data sibique suisque successoribus in ipso quem confessus fuit petra 
ta, dicente domino ipsi Petro (Matt. XVI. 19). Quicunque igitur huic potestati 
) sic ordinatse resistit, dei ordinationi resistit, nisi duo sicut Manic/ueus fingat 
principia, quod falsum et h^ereticum judicamus, quia testante Mose non in 
ipiis sed in principio coelum deus creavit et terram. Porro subesse Romano 
'fici omni humana creatures declaramus, dicimus, definimus [et pronuntiamus\ 
'no esse de necessitate salutisP As can be understood, the Bull at the present day 

trouble to not a few Catholics, and the attempt is made to strip it to some- 
it of its dogmatic authoritative character, or to find help in interpretation. A 
ction of the more important papal pronouncements f^om the time between 
ory VII. and Alexander VI. is given by Mirbt, Quellen z. Gesch. des 
tthums, 1895, P* 47 ^* 

anus, p. 166 : ** Ready everywhere to interpose and take action as agents of the 
cy, entirely independent of the bishops, and of higher authority than the secular 
ts and the local clergy, they really formed churches within the Church, laboured 
le honour and aggrandisement of their orders, and for the power of the Pope» 
hich their privileged position rested." 



124 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

Pope had been brought together ; they were strictly developed, 
too, by Thomas, after new forgeries had been added.^ Never- 
theless, though the doctrine had long been recognised, that 
through a special divine protection the Roman Church could not 
entirely fall from faith, and was the divinely appointed refuge 
for doctrinal purity and doctrinal unity, beyond the groups that 
stood under the influence of the Dominican Order, the doctrine 
of infallibility did not command acceptance. The history of the 
Popes was still too well known ; even in the canonical law-book 
there were contradictory elements, and* Popes as great as 
Innocent III. admitted the possibility of a Pope falling into sin 

1 There are specially to be considered here the Pseudocyrillian passages ; see the 
valuable inquiry by Reusch, Die Falschungen in dem. Tractat des Thomas v. Aquin 
gegen die Griechen, Abhandl. d. k. bay. Akad. der Wissensch. III., CI. l8, Bd. 
3 Abth., 1889. On Thomas as the normal theologian for the doctrine of in£Ulibility, 
see Langen, Das Vatic. Dogma, 3 ThI., p. 99 ff. ; Leitner, Der hi. Thomas uber das 
unfehlbare Lehramt des Papstes, 1872, Delitzsch, Lehrsystem der romischen K., I., 
p. 194 ff. Thomas, Summa Sec. Sec. qu. il art. 2: ** Sic ergo aliqui doctores 
videntur dissensisse vel circa ea quorum nihil interest ad Bdem utrum sic vel aliter 
teneatur, vel etiam in quibusdam ad fidem pertinentibus, quae nondum erant per 
ecclesiam determinata. Postquam autem essent auctoritate universalis ecclesiae 
determinata, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnaret, haereticus censeretur. 
Qua quidem anctoritas principaliter residet in summo pontifice,^'* Sec. Sec. qu. I art. 
10 (*' utrum ad summum pontificem pertineat fidei symbolum ordinare?"). Here, 
as usual, the thesis is first denied, then follows : *'editio symboli facta est in synodo 
generali, sed hujusmodi synodus auctoritate solius summi pontificis potest congregari. 
Ergo editio symboli ad aucloritatem summi pontificis pertinet.'* Further: "Nova 
ediiio symboli necessaria est ad vitandum insurgentes errores. Ad illius ergo auc' 
toritatem pertinet editio symbolic ad cujtis auctoritatem pertinet firuUiter determinare ea 
qua suntjideif ut ab omnibus imoncussajide ieneantur. Hoc autem pertinet ad auctori- 
tatem summi pontificis, ad quem majores et difficiliores ecclesiae quaestiones refemntur 
(there follows a passage from the decretals). Unde et dominus (Luke XXII. 32) 
Petro dixit, quem summum pontificem constituit : ego pro te rogavi, etc. Et hujos 
ratio est : quia una fides debet esse totius ecclesiae secundum illud i Cor* I. 10 : Id 
ipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata. Quod servari non posset nisi 
quastio exorta determinetur per eum, qui toti ecdesia praest^ ut sic ejus senteniia a 
tota ecclesia firmiter teneatur , et ideo cui solam auctoritatem summi pontificis pertinet 
nova editio symboli, sicut et omnia alia quae pertinent ad totam ecclesiam, ut con- 
gregare synodum generalem et alia hujusmodi." The tenet, that to every Pope 
there belongs personal holiness (Gregory VII. ), was no longer reasserted, because, 
as Dollinger (Janus, p. 168) supposes, the danger existed of arguing from the 
defective holiness of a Pope to the illegality of his decisions. 

2 See the canon in Gratian ascribed to Boniface ** Si Papa," dist. 40, 6. On the 
whole question see Mirbt, Publicistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., p. 566 ff. 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. I25 

in matters of faith, and, in that case, acknowledged the com- 
petency of the judgment of the entire Church.^ It was thus 
possible that at the University of Paris a decided opposition 
should establish itself, which led, e,g,^ to the Pope being charged 
with heresy in connection with a doctrine of John XXII. The 
indefiniteness in which many Church doctrines (and theories of 
practice, e,g.^ in regard to ordination) still stood, and the hesitat- 
ing attitude which the Popes assumed towards them, also pre- 
vented the dogmatic authority of the papacy from being taken 
as absolute.* Although the falsification of history, by the 
publication of historic accounts that painted over in ai> 
incredible way the great conflict between the papacy and the 
Empire, reached its climax about 1300,* and the principles of the 
Thomist policy* always received a fuller adoption, the decisive 
question of the infallibility remained unsolved. From about the 
year 1 340, indeed, the literature in which the papal system was 
delineated in the most extravagant way,^ ceased entirely to be 

^ See the admission in Eymerici Director. Inquis., p. 295 (cited in Janus, p. 295).. 

3 See the question of reordination in connection with ** Simonists." 

3 Martin of Troppau and Tolomeo of Lucca. 

^ Thomas, de regimine principum, continued by Tolomeo. 

* The most extreme works are those of Augustinus Triumphus, Summa de ecclesiast.. 
potest, (ob. 1328) and of the Franciscan Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesise (ob. 
1352). From the Summa de potestate eccl. of the former, and from the work de 
planctu ecclesiae of the latter, Gieseler II., 3, 2 Aufl., p. 42 ff. and loi ff., gives fiiU 
extracts, which show that the glorification of the Pope could not be carried further 
in the nineteenth century. Augustinus asserted generally : " Nulla lex populo 
christiano est danda, nisi ipsius papae auctoritate ; " for only the papal power i& 
immediately from God, and it embraces the jurisdictio et cura totius mundL. 
Alvarus carried the identifying of Christ with the Pope to the point of blasphemy,, 
and at the same time declared the Pope to be the rightful possessor of the imperium. 
Komanum from the days of Peter. At bottom, both distinguish the Pope from God 
only by saying that to the earthly **dominus deus noster papa'* (see Finke, I.e., 
p. 44 flf. ; observe that I have placed the word ** earthly " before the expression,, 
which indicates the trope here employed, so far as there is one), adoration is due only^ 
'* ministerialiter." (Finke, I.e., pp. 40-44, has objected to this last sentence, and 
believes he has refuted it from the source, Augustinus Triumphus. That, according 
to Augustinus, there belongs to the Pope the serviius summa [t.^., the Latreia, full 
divine worship] I have not asserted. But certainly Augustinus teaches that the 
Pope possesses participative and exercises ministerialiter the summa potestas [the 
dominatio, the divine power of rule] ; in accordance with this therefore must the 
dulia also be defined which belongs to the Pope. Instead of the somewhat short 
expression " ministerialiter,*' which it would be better not to use, I should have 



126 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

produced. Only after 120 years did it re-appear, when it was a 
-question of rescuing and asserting the old claims of the papacy 
against the Council of B^sle. It was then that Cardinal 
Torquemada wrote that defence of the papal system,^ which, 
resting on a strict Thomistic foundation, was still regarded at 
the period of the Reformation as the most important achieve- 
ment of the papal party. But from the middle of the fifteenth 
century the papal system, as a whole, was again gathering 
power, after the storm of the Councils had been happily 
exorcised by the brilliant but crafty policy of Eugene IV. Only 
the French nation maintained what ground of freedom was 
already won in opposition to the Pope (Bourges 1438). The 
other nations returned, through the Concordats, to their old 
dependence on the Autocrat in Rome ; * indeed, they were, to 
some extent, betrayed just by their own local rulers, inasmuch 
as these men saw it to be of advantage in hastening their attain- 
ment to full princely power to take shares with the Pope in the 
Church of the country.* This fate overtook, in the end, even the 
French national Church (through the concordat of Dec 15 16), 
and yet in such a way that the king obtained the chief share of 
the power over it While, as the fifteenth century passed into 
the sixteenth, the Popes were indulging wildly in war, luxury, 
and the grossest simony, Cajetan and Jacobazzi wrought out 
the strictest papal theory, the former including in it the doctrine 
of infallibility.* The hopes of the nations in the Council were 

said : ** The adoration '* belongs in the way in which it is due to him who shares in 
the divine power of rule, and exercises it as an instrument of God.) 

^ De Pontifice Maximo et generalis concilii auctoritate ; see also his Summa de 
ecclesia and the Apparatus super decreto unionis Grsecorum. 

2 Rome, however, always understood these concordats as acts of grace, by which 
only the party admitted to partnership was bound. Even at an earlier time this 
view was maintained by Roman canonists, and was deduced from the supreme 
lordship of the Pope over all men. 

^ Think of the development of the territorial-prince system in the fifteenth century. 
Great rulers (Emperor Frederick III.) and small literally vied with each other, till 
far on in the sixteenth century, in injuring the independence of their national churches. 
The local princes derived a passing, but the Pope the permanent, advantage. 

* In the period of conflict between the Popes and the Councils the question about 

he infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith had retired into the background. At 

the Union Council at Florence it was not mentioned. Even Torquemada admitted 

the possibility of a Pope falling into a heresy ; from this, howe%'er, he did not conclude 



CHAP. IL] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 12/ 

quenched, the old tyranny was again set up ; it was complained, 
indeed, that the ecclesiastical despotism was worse than that of 
the Turks, but, nevertheless, men submitted to the inevitable. 
About the year 1500 the complaints were perhaps more 
bitter than at any other time ; but the falling away was 
slight, the taking of steps less frequent. Heresy seemed to 
have become rarer and tamer than in the thirteenth and four- 
teenth centuries, especially after the Hussite movement had 
exhausted itself. The " heretics " — so it appeared — had 
really become the "silent in the land," who shunned an 
open breach with the Church ; their piety appeared less 
aggressive. " It was pretty generally felt that it had happened 
to the Church with the Reformation, as formerly it had happened 
to the King of Rome with the Sibylline books ; after the seed of 
corruption sown by the Curia had, for fifty years, borne a much 
larger harvest, and the Church itself made no more effort to save 
it, the Reformation had to be purchased at a much heavier price 
and with still smaller prospect of success."^ The Lateran 
Council at the beginning of the sixteenth century, which treated 
with scorn all wishes of the nations and promulgated the papal 
theory in the strictest sense,* as if there had never been councils 
at Constance and B&sle, was tacitly recognised. But it was the 
lull before the storm — a storm which the Pope had yet to 
experience, who had entered upon his office with the words : 
** Volo, ut pontificatu isto quam maxime perfruamur." (It is my 
wish that we may enjoy the pontificate in the largest measure 
possible.)* 

Before the time of Thomas theology took no part in this im- 

that the council was superior to him, for a heretical Pope was ipso facto deposed by 
God. This impracticable, imbecile assumption was first rejected by Cajetan, who 
reverted to the doctrine of Thomas, which was based on fictitious passages from the 
Fathers, while he added himself a new falsification by suppressing the proposition 
laid down at Constance : "error est, si per Romanam ecclesiam intelligat universalem 
aut concilium generale. " With him also originated the famous proposition, that the 
Catholic Church is the bom hand-maid of the Pope. 

1 Janus, p. 365. 

2 The Pope, it is said in the Bull " Pastor actemus," has the ** auctoritas super 
omnia concilia" ; he alone may convene, transfer, and dissolve them. 

8 On the handing down of this saying, see Janus, p. 381, n. 407. 



128 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

posing development of the papal theory ; even after him the 
share taken by it was small. The development was directed by 
jurisprudence, which founded simply on external, mostly forged, 
historic testimonies, and drew its conclusions with dialectic art 
The meagre share of theology is to be explained on two 
grounds. First, Rome alone had a real interest in the whole 
theory ; but in Rome theology never flourished, either in 
antiquity or in the Middle Ages. There was practical concern 
in Rome neither with Scripture exposition nor with the 
dogmatic works of the Fathers. Whoever wished to study 
theology went to France. For the Curia, only the student of 
law was of any account ; from the time of Innocent IV. a school 
of law existed in Rome ; the great majority of the Cardinals 
were well-equipped jurists, not theologians, and the greatest 
Popes of the Middle Ages, Alexander III., Innocents III. and 
IV., Boniface VIII., etc., came to the papal chair as highly- 
esteemed legal scholars.^ When it was now much too late, men 
with clear vision, like Roger Bacon, or pious patriots, like 
Dante, saw that the ruin of the Church was due to the decretals, 
which were studied in place of the Church Fathers and 
Scripture. The former, in particular, demanded very loudly that 
the Church should be delivered from the secularised Church law 
which was poisoning it. In the fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries there were complaints constantly made about the 
papacy, and about the corrupted Church law ("Jurists bad 
Christians ") as being the real source of all evil. It was the 
spirit of ancient Rome that had settled down on the Mediaeval 
spirit, that Roman spirit of jurisprudence, which had now, how- 
ever, degenerated into a spirit of tyranny, and used as its means 
audacious forgeries. But the slight share of theology in the 
development of the hierarchical conception of the Church is to 
be explained not merely from the lack of theology, but, second, 
from the fortunate incapacity of theology (till past the middle of 
the thirteenth century) to lower itself to this notion of the 
Church. Anyone who reflected as a theologian on the Church, 
instituted researches into the works of the Church fathers, especi- 

^ See Diillinger, Ueber das Studium der deutschen Geschichte (Akad. Vortrage II., 
pp. 407 ff., 418 f. 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, I29 

ally Augustine. But here the spiritual conception of the Church 
{i.e.y the Church as corpus Christi [body of Christ], as multitude 
fidelium [multitude of the faithful], as universitas Christianorum 
[entire mass of Christians]) came so clearly to view that for the 
time it riveted reflection, and there was failure to force one's 
way with any confidence to the hierarchical, not to speak of the 
papal, conception, or it was only touched on. This explains 
how all the great theologians before Thomas, from Anselm on- 
wards, even those of Gregorian tendency, achieved as theologians 
very little in promoting the development of the hierarchical 
conception of the Church. They taught and wrote like 
Augustine, indeed they still remained behind him in precise 
definition of the Church as an external society.^ Theology did 
nothing for the development and establishment of the papal system 
till far on in the thirteenth century^ and it may here be said at 
once in its honour, that with a single, and that even not a perfect, 
exception (Thomas), it did only half work in the time that 
followed, leaving the most to be done by the Post-Tridentine 
theology.^ So far as I know, there is nothing to be found in the 
theological writings of the Schoolmen in the shape of rounded 
off formulae for, nothing of strictly systematic exposition of, the 
conception of the Church (as in the case of the doctrine of the 
Sacraments). On the other hand, both in Hugo St. Victor, and 
in the later Schoolmen also, not a few fundamental lines of proof 
with regard to the notion of the Church can be pointed to 
which were directly and without change taken over by the 

^ See Hugo of St. Victor, de Sacr. II., p. II., c. 2 sq. In his Sentences the 
Lombard made no mention whatever of the papacy ! So far as others dealt with the 
Church at all, even the firmness of Cyprian in apprehending the hierarchical notion 
of the Church was not reached. Numerous proofs in Langen, Das Vaticanische 
Dogma, 2. Theil. If Hugo differs from the other earlier theologians in entering 
more fully into a description of the Church, this has a connection with his interest 
in the Sacraments. What he says about the hierarchy and the Pope falls behind the 
Gregorian ideas, and therefore does nothing to advance them. Even about the 
relation of the Church (the Pope) to the State he has still evangelical ideas. And 
yet here, as elsewhere also, he must be held as in many respects the precursor of 
Thomas. 

< It is amazing that in Thomasius-Seeberg (p. 196) the sentence : " As in general, 
so also with regard to the Church, Scholasticism set itself the task of proving that 
what exists ought to exist,*' is foUowed at once by the other : *' It must be emphasised 
here first of all, that Scholasticism does not know of a dogma of the Church." 

I 



1 30 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP, II. 

"heretical" parties, and by men like Wyclif.^ What most 
simply explains this is that the patristic, and especially the 
Augustinian, expositions still determined theoloory. Yet it is 
not to be denied, that from the middle of the thirteenth century 
theology took a certain share in developing the conception of 
the Church. It was just the Mendicant Monks — to the shame 
of St. Francis — who, even as theologians, began to be enthusiastic 
for the papal theory, after there had been conferred upon them 
such excessive privileges as could only be held legal if the Pope 
was really the Lord of the Church. There was added to this, 
that in the thirteenth century, in the course of the negotiations 
with the Greeks, theology saw that it had to face the task of 
ingratiating them into the papal system also. // was in can- 
flection with this task that there was awakened the interest theology 
took in the hierarchical conception of the Church which formed the 
presupposition of the papal system^ and the great thinker, Thomas 
Aquinas, now developed at once the hierarchical and papal 
theory, together with a bold theory of the state.* But he was far 

1 The agreement of the ** heretics " with the fundamental Catholic notion of the 
Church was not unfrequently substantiated by their Catholic opponents. These men 
were still naive enough to hold the conception of the Church as societas unitatis fidei 
as their own basis ; see correct statement by Gottschick (Zeitscbr. f. K.-Gesch. VIII., 

p. 348 f.). 

* The Council of Lyons in 1274 was of epoch-making importance here. The 
vigorous re-awakening of interest in the theoretic statement and proof of the papal 
system in the middle of the fifteenth century likewise finds an explanation in the 
transactions with the Greeks. In this way the relation of the Greeks to the West 
came to be of sinister omen. There was a wish to win them for the papacy, and this 
became the occasion for developing "scientifically" for the first time — mostly by 
means of forgeries — the papal theory ! 

i homas develops the chief attributes of the Pope (summus pontifex, caput 

ecclesise, cura ecclesise universalis, plenitudo potestatis, potestas determinandi novum 

symbolum). The discussions on the distribution of hierarchical power may here be 

left aside (on the development of the notion of the Church as a monarchy Aristotle's 

influence was at work). We have only to note how entirely the second conception 

of the Church, i.e.^ the hierarchical, is dominated by the doctrine of the Sacraments. 

The particulars of the Thomist conception of the Church were not dogma in his day, 

but they afterwards became the norm for dogmatic construction. That Thomas, 

moreover, does not place the hierarchical notion of the Church side by side with the 

spiritual without indicating a relation has been shown by Gottschick, l.c. pp. 347- 

357. Yet it must not be forgotten that such tenets as those of Augustine regarding 

the Church (taken in connection with predestinarian grace) continued to exercise 

their own influence even when they were subordinated to alien thoughts. Thomas 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 131 

from surrendering, at the same time, the spiritual conception of 
the Church, or — as was done in the Post-Tridentine period — 
from correcting it throughout by means of the hierarchical. 
With all his logical consistency in the development of the papal 
system, he certainly did not derive the powers of the bishops and 
priests entirely from the papal ; in his " Summa " he still works 
to a great extent with the notion of the " Ecclesia " as having 
the force of a central conception, and in doing so has no thought 
of monarchy. For him it is no figure of speech that the 

(Explanation of the Apostolic Symbol; see also "Summa" III., qu. 8) begins by 
representing the Church as a religious community (congregatio fidelium, corpus 
mysticum) whose head is Christ. But while so describing it — as the community of 
those who are united to Christ by the love that proceeds from God — ^he at the same 
time accentuates the moral character of the community, as an entire whole ruled by 
the divine law, which embraces the earth, heaven, and purgatory, and which has its 
end in the vision and enjoyment of God. In more precisely defining the compass of 
the Church, Thomas's process of proof is affected by all the uncertainties which we 
already observed in Augustine, and which were due to regard on the one hand to 
predestinarian grace (in accordance with which all particulars are determined), and on 
the other hand to the empirical circumstances. Even the reprobi, according to him, 
are in the Church de potentia, that is to say, so long as they stand under the influence 
of the virtus Christi or still through their free will hold a connection with him. Now, so 
far as the Church imparts to the individual the love of God, and thereby sanctification, 
it is an external community like the state, is discernible by external marks, is defined 
by an external limit (excommunication) and requires the hierarchical organisation ; 
for this last is the presupposition of sacramental celebration. If, until felicity is 
reached, the life of the indiWdual as a believer proceeds by stages of faith {t'.e,, of 
holding true upon authority) and is regulated by the several sacraments which contain 
the saving grace, this implies that it is of the essence of the Church that it is the 
authority on doctrine and the administrator of the Sacraments. But this it can only 
be as a community with a strictly legal and hierarchical organisation. In this way 
the second conception of the Church is brought by Thomas into closest connection with 
the first, and Gottschick (p. 353) is quite correct in further pointing out that ** faith 
in the objective sense is part of the commands of ihe law by which (see above) the 
Church must be guided." The Church as a legal authority on doctrine, and as a 
priestly sacramental institution, is therefore the *'*' exclusive organ by which the Head 
of the Church, Christ, forms its members." One sees then that a very spiritual con» 
ception of the Church, nay, even the predestinarian, can be brought into combination 
with the empirico-hierarchical (Summa III., qu. 64, art. 2 : '*per sacramenta dicitur 
esse fabricata ecclesia Christi. ") As salvation is a mystery that cannot be experienced, 
/.^., as a certainty regarding its possession can never be reached, inasmuch as it con- 
sists of forces that mysteriously operate in the human sphere that is inaccessible to 
reflection, nothing remains but simply to surrender one*s self to the sacramental 
saving institution, which, again, involves the graded priesthood. In this way the 
authority of the clergy necessarily became absolute, and the spiritual (predestinarian) 



132 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. H. 

individual bishop "is called specially the bridegroom of the 
Church as also Christ" (specialiter sponsus ecclesise dicitur sicut 
et ChristusV But, so far as the influence of Thomas extended, 
the result was unquestionably a mingling of jurisprudence and 
theology in this department and the acclimatising of the 
hierarchico-papal notion of the Church.* Yet his influence 
must not be over-rated. The Franciscan (Nominalist) dogmatic 
took little to do, so far as I know, with this development of the 
conception of the Church. Even at the beginning of the Refor- 
mation, the whole hierarchical and papal theory had no sure 
position in dogmatic — // was Romish decretal law. But it had 
attained more than a place in dogmatic. From about 1450 it 
was again energetically acted upon from Rome, and the opposi- 
tion to it appeared no longer so powerful as a century before.^ 

This opposition we have still to review. Here it is to be 
observed, above everything else, that the imperfect public 
development of the conception of the Church was a matter of 
little importance, because in Wx't doctrine of the Sacraments all 
was already acquired as a sure possession which could be ex- 
pected from a formulation of the conception of the Church in 
hierarchical interests. From this, again, it followed still further, 
that the opposition to the hierarchical papal notion of the Church 
necessarily continued — in spite of all fostering — without danger, 

notion of the Church, so far from correcting, necessarily aided this advance of view. 
Hence follows the tenet of the in£Eillibility of the Church, which was bound to 
issue in the infallibility of the Pope ; for some kind of rock to build on must be sought 
for and found. If this does not lie in an overmastering certainty which the subject- 
matter itself brings with it, inasmuch as it transforms the absoluteness of the moral 
imperative into the absolute certainty of the grace of God in Christ, it must be given 
in something external. This external thing, certainly, the infallibility of the priest- 
hood in teaching and administering the Sacraments, can never guarantee to the indi- 
vidual \}ci^ possession of salvation, but only its possibility. 

1 Summa, III. suppl. qu. 40 art. 4 fin. 

"^ The attitude to the State was involved in the position that only the priest is able 
rightly to teach the law of God, but that even the States have no other task than to 
care for the salvation of the souls of their subjects by promoting the virtus that corre- 
sponds to the law of God. 

5 No good Catholic Christian doubted that in spiritual things the clergy were the 
divinely-appointed superiors of the laity, that this power proceeded from the right of 
the priests to celebrate the Sacraments, that the Pope was the real possessor of this 
power, and was far superior to all secular authority. The question, however, as to 
the Pope's power to rule was certainly a subject of controversy. 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, 133 

SO long as the doctrine of the Sacraments was not objected to. 
But the latter again rested on the peculiar view of salvation, as 
the sanctification that leads to the visio dei, as active holiness 
(measured by the standard of the law of God). Here we must 
go back to an earlier point ^ 

Augustine combined the old Catholic notion of salvation, as 
the visio et fruitio dei (vision and enjoyment of God), with the 
doctrine of predestination on the one hand and with the 
doctrine of the regnum Christi (kingdom of Christ) and the 
process of justification on the other. As contrasted with the 
Greek view, both combinations were new ; but the union of the 
idea of salvation with the process of justification and sanctifica- 
tion was easily efifected, because this process was taken as 
regulated entirely by the Sacraments, while the Sacraments, as 
the Greek development shows, formed the necessary correlate 
to the idea of salvation. If in salvation, that is to say, the 
supramundane condition in which one is to find himself is mainly 
emphasised, then there answer to the production of this condi- 
tion, means that operate as holy natural forces. When 
Augustine conceived of these natural forces as forces of love 
working for righteousness, a very great step of progress was taken; 
but no difference was made thereby in the general scheme, since 
love was regarded as infused. But certainly he made it possible 
that there should also be given to the whole process a very 
decided tendency towards morality — which had dropped out of 
the Greek view as held within the lines of dogma. The forces 
of love, that is to say, bring it about that here on earth the law 
of Christ, which is summed up in the commandment to love, can 
be fulfilled. In this way there arises from the forces of love, 
which are transmitted through the Sacraments as channels, the 
kingdom of Christ, in which righteousness reigns according to the 

1 A full understtinding of the Catholic conception of the Church can only be 
reached by starting from the conception of the Sacraments, which, as has been 
observed, is dependent on the view taken of salvation. But from this point of view 
it can also be said that the Catholic notion of the Church forms the necessary supple- 
ment to the imperfect idea of faith. That which is lacking to faith, taken in the 
Catholic sense, namely, the certitudo salutis, is supplied by the doctrinal authority of 
the Church on the one side and by the Sacramental Church institution on the other, 
and yet in such a way that it is obtained only approximately. 



134 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

example and law of Christ. The Sacraments have therefore the 
double effect, that of preparing for, and conducting gradually to 
the visio et fruit io dei, and that of producing on earth the 
Church in which the law of Christ reigns and by which the 
" bene vivere " (right-living) is produced. By the latter of these 
two views the position of the State is determined — as the bene 
vivere is its end, it must submit itself to the sacramental institu- 
tion. But by the whole idea the priesthood as the teaching and 
sanctifying corporation is legitimised ; for the administration of 
the Sacraments is tied to a particular order, whom Christ has 
appointed, and this order, at the same time, is alone empowered 
to interpret the law of Christ with binding authority. To them, 
therefore, there must be subjection. 

This whole view, which, certainly, had not received a clear and 
precise expression from Augustine, obtained clearness and 
precision in the period that followed — less through the labours 
of the theologians than by the force of the resolute Roman 
policy. Because this policy aimed, above all, at monarchy in 
the Church, it had, as the result of its victorious exercise ^ brought 
out clearly for the first time^ and at the same time created, tlie 
general hierarchical conditions requisite for tJie existence of such a 
monarchy. Yet, in spite of many forgeries, it could not bring it 
about that the factor ol hierarchical gradation, comparatively in- 
significant from a dogmatic point of view, but extremely 
important from the point of view of practice, should obtain the 
support of an imposing tradition ; for from Augustine and the 
Fathers in general it was as good as absent But still further, 
Augustine, as we have noted above, combined with the dogma 
of salvation as the visio dei the doctrine of predestination, and 
developed from the latter a doctrine of the Church that held a 
neutral relation to hierarchy and sacrament No doubt it can 
easily be shown that the predestinarian and the sacramental 
hierarchical notions of the Church are not necessarily mutually 
exclusive, nay, that in a certain sense they require each other, 
inasmuch as the individual's uncertainty of his own election, 
affirmed by Augustine, necessarily forces him to make a diligent 
use of all the means furnished by the Church, and the explana- 
tion very naturally occurs that God effectuates the fulfilment 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, 135 

of the predestinating decree only through the empirical Church 
with its Sacraments. But Augustine himself did not assert that; 
and although in the time that came after, this mode of adjusting 
things came to be very much in favour, yet, as there was no 
allowing the doctrine of predestination to drop out, there was 
involved in this doctrine an element that threatened, like an 
overhanging mass of rock, to destroy the existence of the struc- 
ture beneath. Finally, Augustine had no doubt carried on a 
victorious conflict with Donatism; but there was still one point 
at which it was not easy to deny entirely the correctness of the 
Donatist thesis, and that was the sacrament of penance. It 
could certainly be made credible that baptism, the Lord's supper, 
confirmation, ordination were valid, even when an unworthy 
priest dispensed them ; but how was such a man to be able to 
sit in judgment upon the holy and the unholy, to apply the law 
of Christ, to bind and loose, if the load rested on himself of 
ignorance of sin? It was surely more than paradoxical, it was an 
inconceivable thought, that the blind should be able to judge 
aright as to light and darkness. Was excommunication by such 
a man to be held valid before God ? Was his absolution to have 
force ? There was no doubt an escape sought for here, also, by 
saying that it is Christ who binds and looses, not the priest, who 
is only a minister; but when flagrant unrighteousness was prac- 
tised by the priest, when such cases increased in number, what 
was then to be done ? ^ 

1 Let it be distinctly noted here that it was just the strict papal system that had 
widely given rise in the period of the great conflicts (eleventh and twelfth centuries) 
to the greatest uncertainty about ordinations, seeing that the Popes cancelled without 
hesitation *'simonistic" orders, and likewise orders of the imperial bishops, nay, 
even ordinations at which a single simonist had been present. Innocent II., 
indeed, at the second Lateran Council, pronounced invalid all ordinations of the 
schismatics, i.e., of the bishops who adhered to Pope Anaclete II. ("From him 
whom he hath ordained we take away the orders" [evacuamus et irritas esse 
consemus] ; the curialist theologians are disposed to see in this only a suspension of 
the exercise of office ; Hefele, Concil. Gesch. V.^, p. 438 f., leaves the passage unex- 
plained ; Friedrich [in his edition of Janus, 2 Aufl., pp. 143, 456] holds to the 
cancelling of the orders.) Thus it was the Popes who were the instructors of those 
sects that spread the greatest uncertainty as to the most important Catholic question, 
the question regarding the validity of orders. At the time of the Schism it was laid 
down by the papal Secretary, Coluccio Salutato, that as all Church power emanates 
from the Pope, and as a wrongly elected Pope has himself no powei, such an one can 



136 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

In a way indicating the greatest acuteness, Thomas com- 
bined the predestinarian (spiritual) and the hierarchical con- 
ceptions of the Church, and tried to eliminate the points from 
which a "heretical" conception could develop itself; but it is 
apparent from what has been stated that one could accept sulh 
stantially the Augustinian-Thotnist notion of the Church with its 
premises (doctrines of salvation and the Sacraments )y and yet^ 
when tested by the claims which the Mediceval Church set up at 
t/te time of its greatest power, could become ^^ heretical^' in the 
event, namely y of his either (i) contesting the hierarchical grcuia- 
tion of the priestly order ; or (2) giving to the religious idea of 
the Church implied in the thought of predestination a place superior 
to the conception of the empirical Church ; or (3) applying to the 
priests, and tltereby to t/ie authorities of the Church, the test of the 
law of God, before admitting tJuir right to exercise, as holding the 
keys, the power of binding and loosing. 

Certainly during the whole of the Middle Ages there were 
sects who attacked the Catholic notion of the Church at the 
root ; but however important they may be for the history of 
culture, they play no part in the history of dogma ; for as 
their opposition, as a rule, developed itself from dualistic or 
pantheistic premises (surviving effects of old Gnostic or 
Manichaean views), they stood outside of ordinary Christendom, 
and, while no doubt affecting many individual members within 
it, had no influence on Church doctrine.^ On the other hand, it 
may be asserted that all the movements which are described as 
** reformations anticipating the Reformation," and which for a 
time resisted not unsuccessfully the introduction of the Romish 

give none ; consequently the bishops and priests ordained since the death of Gregory 
XI. were incompetent to dispense the Sacraments. If, accordingly, says Coluccio, a 
believer adores the Eucharist that has been consecrated by a bishop ordained in the 
Schism, he worships an idol (in a letter to Jost of Moravia in Martene, Thes. Anecd. 
II., p. 1 1 59, quoted by Janus, p. 318). 

^ There are referred to here sects like the Catharists and Albigenses, " Patarenes," 
** Buljjarians," as also the adherents of Amalrich of Bena, the Ortliebists (allied to 
the Waldensians), the sect of the New Spirit, the sect of the Free Spirit, and many 
similar movements; see Hahn, Gcsch. der Ketzer ini Mittelalter, 3 Bdd., Renter, 
*Aufkl&rung Bd. II., the different works of Ch. Schmidt, Jundt, Pregcr, Haupt; 
Staude, Urspr. d. Katharer (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V. i); D511inger, Beitrage t 
Seciengesch. des Mittelalters, 1890. 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 1 37 

conception of the Church, set out from the Augustinian concep- 
tion of the Church, but took exception to the development of 
this conception, from the three points that have been defined 
above. Now whether we look at the Waldensian, the Lombard, 
the Apocalyptico-Joachimic, the Franciscan opposition to the 
new conception of the Church, whether at that of the Empire or 
the Councils, of Wyclif or Huss, or even, indeed, at the humanist, 
we have always the same spectacle. On the first view the 
opposition seems radical, nay, expressly antagonistic. Angry 
curses — Anti-Christ, Babylon, Church of the devil, priests of 
the devil, etc. — catch the ear everywhere. But if we look a 
little more closely, the opposition is really much tamer. That 
fundamental Catholic conception of the Church, as a sacra- 
mental institution, is not objected to, because the fundamental 
conception of salvation and of blessedness remains unassailed. 
Although all hierarchical gradation may be rejected, the con- 
ception of the hierarchical priesthood is allowed to stand ; al- 
though the Church may be conceived of as the community of 
the predestinated, every Christian must place himself under the 
influence of the Sacraments dispensed by the Church, and must 
use them most diligently, for by means of these his election is 
effected ; although the sacramental acts of unworthy priests 
may be invalid, still priests are needed, but they must live ac- 
cording to the law of Christ ; although the Church as the 
community of the predestinated may be known only to God, 
yet the empirical Church is the true Church, if the apostolic 
life prevails in it, and a true empirical Church of the kind is 
absolutely necessary, and can be restored by reforms ; although, 
finally, all secular rights may have to be denied to the Pope 
and the priesthood, yet secular right in general is something 
that has gradually to disappear. The criticism of the Romish 
conception of the Church is therefore entirely a criticism from 
within. 

The criticism must not on that account be under-estimated ; 
it certainly accomplished great things ; in it the spiritual and 
moral gained supremacy over the legal and empirical, and 
Luther was fortunate when he came to know Huss's doctrine of 
the Church, Yet we must not be deceived by this as to the 



138 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

fact that the conception of the Church held by all the opposing 
parties was only a form of the Augustinian conception of the 
Church, modified bv the Waldensian-Franciscan ideal of the 
apostolic life (according to the law of Christ). The ways in 
which the elements were mingled in the programmes of the 
opposition parties were very different ; at one time the 
predestinarian element preponderated, at another time an 
apocalyptic-legal, at another the Franciscan, at another the 
biblical (the lex Christi), at another they were all present in 
equipoise. Especially on the ground that these opposition 
parties, starting from the doctrine of predestination, enforced 
the conception of the " invisible Church," and applied the 
standard of Scripture to everything, they are praised as evan- 
gelical. But attention has very rightly been drawn of late to 
the fact ^ that they by no means renounced the conception of an 
empirical, true Church, a conception to which they were driven 
by individual uncertainty about election, and that their stand- 
point on the ground of Scripture is the Catholic-legal, as it had 
been adopted by Augustine, Bernard, and Francis. 

Under such circumstances it is enough to delineate in a few 
of their features the conceptions of the Church held by the 
several parties. The Waldensians contested neither the Catholic 
cultus nor the Sacraments and the hierarchical constitution in 
themselves, but they protested (i) as against a mortal sin, 
^gainst the Catholic clergy exercising the rights of the suc- 
cessors of the Apostles without adopting the apostolic life ; 
and (2) against the comprehensive power of government on the 
part of the Pope and the bishops, hence against the Romish 
hierarchy with its graded ranks. But the French Waldensians 
did not, nevertheless, contest the validity of the Sacraments 
dispensed by unworthy priests, though this certainly was done 
by those of Lombardy.^ Among the Waldensians, then, the 
conception of the laiv of Christy as set forth in Scripture and as 
prescribing to the priests the apostolic life, rises above all 
other marks of the Church (among those in Italy the Donatist 

^ See Gottschick in the dissertation cited above and K. MuUer, Bericht, etc., p. 

37 f. 
2 See above, p. 90, and Miiller, Waldesier, p. 93 ff. and passim. 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 1 39 

element developed itself from this). The same applies to a 
part of the Franciscans, who passed over to the opposition. In 
the sharp polemic against Rome on the part of the Joachimites, 
the apocalyptic element takes its place side by side with the 
legal : clergy and hierarchy are judged from the standpoint of 
emancipated monachism and of the approaching end of time.^ 
No wonder that just this view gained favour with not a few 
Franciscans, that it extended itself to far in the North among 
all sections of the people,* and that it came to take up a 
friendly (Ghibelline) attitude towards the State. As thus 
modified it freed itself up to a certain point from the wild 
apocalyptic elements, and passed over to be merged in the 
imperialist opposition. Here also they were again Franciscans 
who passed over also, and to some extent, indeed, conducted 
the resistance to the papal power (Occam). In this opposition 
the dispute was by no means about the Church as a sacramental 
institution and as a priesthood, but simply about the legitimacy 
of the hierarchical gradation of rank (including the Pope, whose 
divine appointment Occam contested), and about the governing 
powers of the hierarchy, which were denied. But these powers 
were denied on the ground of the Franciscan view, that the 
Church admits of no secular constitution, and that the hierarchy 
must be poor and without rights. The assigning of the entire 
legal sphere to the State was at bottom an expression of 
contempt for that sphere, not indeed on the part of all literary 
opponents of the papacy in the fourteenth century, but yet on 
the part of not a few of them.* The imperialist opposition was 



iSee Rcutcr., I.e. II., p. 191 ff., and Archiv. f. Litt.-und K.-Gesch. dcs Mittel- 
alters I., p. 105 fl*. 

* In greater numbers than before protocols of processes against heretics have been 
published in recent years ; see Wattenbach in the Sitzungsberichten der Berliner 
Academic, 1886, IV., and Dollinger, I.e., Bd. 2. We can very easily understand how, 
above all, the charge was brought against the heretics that they did away with the 
Sacraments. 

3 Besides Occam, Maisilius of Padua and John of Jandun are specially to be named 
here ; cf. Riezler, Die lit. Widersacher der Papste z. Z. Lud wig's des Bayern, 1874, 
K. Mtlller, der Kampf Ludwig*s d. B. mit der rom. Curie, 2 Bdd., 1879 f., Fried- 
berg, Die Grenzen zwischen Slaat und Kirche, 1882, the same author. Die mittel- 
alterlichen Lehren iiber d. Verb. v. St. u. K., 1874; Dorner, Das Verhaltoiss von 



140 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

dissolved by that of the Councils. Reform of the Church in 
Its head and members was the watchword — but the professors 
of Paris, who, like the German professors in the fifth and sixth 
decades of the present century, gave themselves up to the 
illusion that they sat at the loom of history, understood by 
this reform merely a national-liberal reff»rm of the ecclesiastical 
constitution (after the pattern of the constitution of the 
University of Paris), the restriction of the tyrannical and 
speculative papal rights, the giving to the Council supremacy 
over the papacy,^ and the liberating of the national Churches 
from papal oppression, with a view to their possessing inde- 
pendence, either perfect or relative. The importance of these 
ideas from the point of view of ecclesiastical policy, and the 
sympathy we must extend to the idealism of these professors, 
must not lead to our being deceived as to the futility of their 
efforts for reform, which were supported by the approval of 
peoples and princes. They attacked at the root the Gregorian 
(Pseudo-Isidorian) development of the ecclesiastical constitution 
and of the papacy ; but they did not say to themselves, that 
this development must always again repeat itself if the root, the 
doctrines of the Sacraments and of the priesthood, be left un- 
touched. But how could these doctrines be assailed when there 
was agreement with the Curialists in the view taken of salvation 
and of the law of Christ ? In face of the actual condition of 

K. u. St. nach Occam (Stud. u. Krit. 1885, IV.). How powerfully the idea of the 
State asserted itself in the fourteenth century (cf. even Dante earlier) is well known. 

1 Cf. the famous decrees of the fourth and fifth Sessions of the Council of Constance : 
•* Every legally-convened CEcumenical Council representing the Church has its 
authority directly from Christ, and in matters of faith, in the settlement of disputes 
and the reformation of the Church in its head and members, every one, even the 
Pope, is subject to it." Even the cardinals did not venture to refuse their assent. 
The Thomist conception of the Church was ias yet no dogma ; by the decisions of 
Constance it was tacitly — unfortunately only tacitly — described as error ; but at the 
Council, so far as is known, no voice was raised on its behalf, and though Martin V. 
took his stand at the beginning on the newly acquired ground, it was only for a 
minute. That the Council of B&sle, on an understanding with the Pope, gave a fresh 
declaration of the decrees of Constance, is well known. But thereafter Eugene IV. 
himself, and wisely, brought about the breach. On the Council of Constance we shall 
shortly be able to judge much better than before, when the great publication of Finke, 
Acta concilii Constanciensis will be before us, of which the first volume (Acten z. 
Vorgeschichte) has already appeared (1896). 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. I4I 

things, which had developed throughout many centuries in the 
Church, the idea that the Church's disorders could be healed by 
paralysing the papal system of finance, and declaring the 
Council the divinely instituted court of appeal in the Church, 
was a Utopia, the realisation of which during a few decades was 
only apparent It is somewhat touching to observe with what 
tenacity in the fifteenth, and beginning of the sixteenth^ 
centuries, men clung to the hope that a Council could heal the 
hurt of Israel, and deliver the Church from the tyranny of the 
Pope. The healing indeed came, but in a way in which it was 
not expected, while it was certainly the only healing which a 
Council could permanently bestow — it came at the Councils of 
Trent and the Vatican.^ 

Even before the beginning of the great opposition movement 
of the Councils against the papal system, the most important 
mediaeval effort towards reform had been initiated — the Wyclifite^ 
which continued itself in the Hussite, In spite of wild extrava- 
gances, the movement under Wyclif and Huss, in which many 
of the earlier lines of effort converged, must be regarded as the 
ripest development of mediaeval reform-agitation. Yet it will 

* On the conception of the Church held by the Paris theologians and their friends — 
they thought of themselves, not without reason, as restoring the old Catholic view, 
yet under quite changed circumstances the old thing became a new — see Schwab, 
Gerson, 1858, Tschackert, d'Ailly, 1877, Haitwig, Henricus de Langenstein, 1858, 
Brockhaus, Nicolai Cusani de concilii univ. potest, sen tent., 1867. Also the works 
on Clemange and the Italian and Spanish Episcopalists. In particular matters the 
representatives of the conciliar ideas, at that time and later, widely diverged from 
each other, and more especially, each one defined differently the relation of the Pope 
to the Council and to the Church : there were some who held the papacy to be en- 
tirely superfluous, and some who only wished for it, so to speak, a slight letting of 
blood. The great majority interfered in no way with its existence, but aimed merely 
at purifying and restricting it ; see the good review of the Episcopal S3rstem in 
DeUtzsch, Lehrsystem der rom. K., p. 165 ff. Janus, p. 314 ff. No doubt it only 
needs to be recalled here that the Episcopal system arose from the frightful trouble 
created by the Schism, when the Italians wished to wrest back the papacy from the 
French. The termination of the Schism was a real, but it was also the only perma- 
nent, result of the Councils. Yet it must not be overlooked that in the definitions of 
the Church which the Episcopalists had furnished, Reformation elements were in- 
cluded, though these certainly were derived almost entirely from Augustine; for 
Augustine reiterated the position that the keys are given, not to an individual, bot ta 
the Church, and in his dogmatic expositions he always subordinated the constitational 
to the spiritual unity of the Church. . 



142 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

appear, that while doing much in the way of loosening and 
preparing, it gave expression to no Reformation thought ; it, 
too, confined itself to the ground that was Augustinian- 
Franciscan, with which there was associated only a powerful 
national element. Yet to Wyclifs theory, which Huss simply 
transcribed,^ a high value is to be attached, as being the only 
coherent theological theory which the Middle Ages opposed to 
the Thomist All the other mediaeval opponents of the Romish 
Church system work with mere measuring-lines or with frag- 
ments. 

When we look at what Wyclif and Huss challenged or 
rejected, we might suppose that here a radical criticism of the 
Catholic conception of the Church was carried through, and a 
new idea of the Church presented. Everything must be de- 
termined by Holy Scripture ; the practice in regard to worship 
and the Sacraments is everywhere represented as perverted and 
as encumbered by the traditions of men ; the doctrine of in- 
dulgence, the practice of auricular confession, the doctrine of 
transubstantiation (Wyclif), the manducatio infidelium (com- 
municating of unbelievers), the priests* absolute power of the 
keys, are as zealously opposed as the worship of saints, images, 
and relics, private masses, and the many sacramentalia. For the 
worship of God there are demanded plainness, simplicity, and 
intelligibility ; the people must receive what will be inwardly 
and spiritually edifying (hence the preference for the vernacular).* 
With the thorough reform of worship and of sacrament celebra- 

1 Wyclifs works are only now being made fully accessible ; cf. the Trialogues edited 
by Lechler, the controversial writings j^ublished by Buddensieg, and especially the 
treatise de ecclesia edited by Loserth (Wyclif Society from 1882). Monographs by 
Lechler, 2 vo'.s., 1872 (and in Herzog*s R.-E.) and by Buddensieg, 1885. TTie dis- 
covery thai Huss simply, and to a large extent verbally, adopted the Wyclifite 
•doctrine, we owe to Loserth (IIus und Wiclif, 1884), see also the same author's Intro- 
duction to the treatise de ecclesia. The results of Gottschick's discussion of Huss'.s 
doctrine of the Church (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. VIIL, p. 345 ff.) apply therefore 
throughout to Wyclif. I do not venture an opinion as to how far Wesel and WesscI 
were influenced by Huss. Savonarola continued the opposition of the Mendicant 
Monks in the old style. 

2 The translation of the Bible was a great achievement of Wyclif ; but it must not 
be forgotten that the Church also of the fifteenth century concerned itself with Bible 
translation, as more recent investigations have shown. 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. I43 

tion there must be a corresponding reform of the hierarchy. 
Here also there must be a reverting to the original simplicity. 
The papacy, as it existed, was regarded as a part of Anti- 
Christ, and this was not less true of the secularised Mendicant 
Monk system (as Lechler has shown, it was only towards the 
end of his life that Wyclif entered upon a vigorous conflict with 
both ; his original attitude towards the Mendicant Monks was 
more friendly). The Pope, who contravenes the law of Christ, 
is the Anti-Christ, and in the controversial treatise " de Christo 
at suo adversario Anti-Christo," it is proved that in twelve matters 
the Pope has apostatised from the law and doctrine of Christ. 
The head of the Church is Christ, not the Pope ; only through 
Constantine has the latter, as the bishop of Rome, become 
great Therefore the Roman bishop must return to a life of 
apostolic service. He is not the direct and proximate vicar of 
Christ, but is a servant of Christ, as are the other bishops as 
well. The entire priestly order exists to serve in humility and 
love ; the State alone has to rule. The indispensable condition 
of priestly service is imitation of the suffering man Jesus. If a 
priest disregards this and serves sin, he is no priest, and all his 
sacred acts are in vain. 

But behind all these positions, which were for the most part 
already made familiar by older reform parties, there lies a dis- 
tinctly defined conception of the Church, which is not new, 
however, but is rather only a variety of the Thomist. Wyclifs 
conception of the Church can be wholly derived from the Augus- 
tinian (influence on Wyclif of Thomas of Bradwardine, the 
Augustinian), when the peculiar national and political conditions 
are kept in view under which he stood,^ and also the impression 
which the Franciscan ideal — even to the length of communism 
indeed — made upon him. Huss stood under quite similar con- 
ditions, and could therefore simply adopt Wyclifism. 

Wyclif sets out from the Augustinian definition of the Church 

1 This has been observed especially by Buddensieg, I.e. In dealing with Wyclif, 
as with al! the opposition movements from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth, the 
great national economical revolution in Europe must be remembered. At the same 
time the Anglo-Saxon type in Wyclif, as contrasted with the Romanic, must not be 
overlooked. 



144 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. tU 

as the entire sum of the predestinated in heaven and on earth. 
To this Church the merely praesciti (foreknown) do not belong; 
they do not belong to it even at the time when they are righteous; 
while, on the other hand, every predestinated one is a member 
of it, even if at the time he is still not under grace, or, say, is a 
heathen or Jew. No one can say of himself without special 
revelation (revelatio specialis) that he belongs to this Church. 
This momentous proposition, which dominates the whole of the 
further discussion, is a clear proof that WycHf and Huss stood 
on Catholic ground, />., that the significance oi faith was en- 
tirely Ignored, As a fact, the definition of the Church as con- 
gregatio fidelium was a mere title ; for, as we shall immediately 
see, faith was not what is decisive ; it comes to view rather 
within the conception of the Church as merely an empirical 
mark (equivalent to community of the baptized). Further, as 
it is an established fact that no one can be certain of his elec- 
tion — for how can one surrender himself here on earth to the 
constant feeling of felicity which springs from the vision and 
enjoyment of God after all other feelings have been quenched ? 
how is it possible to attain to this state of heart even now ? — 
then there is either no mark at all by which the existence of 
the Church may be determined, or we may rest assured that the 
Church of Christ exists where the legacy of Christ is in force — 
the Sacraments and the law of Christ, The latter, not the 
former, is the opinion of Wyclif and Huss. The true Church of 
Christ is where the law of Christ reigns} i.e., the law of love^ 
humility y and poverty, which means the apostolic life in imita- 
tion of Christ, and where, accordingly, the Sacraments also, 
which prepare for the life beyond, are administered in the 
Spirit of Christ The predestination doctrine is not brought into 
service therefore with the view of making room for faith over 
against the Sacraments ^ or in order to construct a purely invisible 
Church — what interest would Wyclif and Huss have then had in 
the reform of the empirical Church?^ — but it is brought into 

1 ** Lex Christ! " and **lex evangelica" were the terms constantly applied to the 
contents of the New Testament even by the Reformers of the fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries, see Otto Clemen, Pupper von Goch (Leipzig, 1896), p. 120 ff.; but at the 
same time it is in some way to hold good that that law is a " lex perfectse libertatis." 

« See Gottschick, l.c., p. 360 ffl 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. I45 

service that it may be possible to oppose the claims of the hierarchy 
as godless pretensions and to set up the law of Christ as the true 
nota ecclesice catholicce. For from what has been shown it fol- 
lows that there can be no rights in the Church which do not 
originate from the acknowledged supremacy of the law of 
Christ. The question is entirely one of establishing this law. 
A leap is taken over faith. The important matter is fides cari- 
tate formata (faith deriving form from love), i.e., caritas, i.e„ the 
law of the Sermon on the Mount (consilia).^ What is contested 
is not only the hierarchical gradation, but the alleged independ- 
ent vxghX. of the clergy to represent the Church and administer the 
means of grace without observing the law of Christ* How can 
such a right exist, if the Church is nothing but the community 
of the predestinated, and as such can have no other mark save 
the law of Christ ? How, again, can acts of priests be valid, 
when the presupposition of all action in the Church, and for the 
Church, is lacking to them — obedience to the law of Christ? 
But this law has its quintessence in the Sermon on the Mount 
and in the example of the poor life of Jesus ; nevertheless (this 
feature is genuinely Augustinian) the whole of Scripture is at 
the same time the law of Christ. This standard then must be 
applied to all ecclesiastical practice. And yet in its application, 
which of course must become entirely arbitrary as soon as the 
attempt is really made to follow the thousand directions liter- 
ally, everything is to be subordinated to the law of love that 
ministers in poverty and — to the reigning dogma. With the 
exception of the transubstantiation doctrine, which Wyclif alone 
objected to, both Reformers left dogma entirely untouched, 
nay, they strengthened it. What they aimed at reforming, and 
did reform, were the ordinances relating to worship and Sacra- 
ments, which had originated in the immediately preceding 
centuries, and were justly felt by them to be restrictions on the 

1 See KitschI, Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 2 ed. I., p. 134. 

9 Huss adhered Hrmly to the Catholic distinction between clergy and laity. Wyclif 
regarded laymen called direcUy by Christ as capable of priestly acts. But that a 
direct appointment by Christ is valid could scarcely be contested even by a Romish 
opponent of Wyclif. The only question, therefore, must be as to whether such an 
appointment can be established. Hence the assertion that Wyclif and Huss opposed 
the universal priesthood to the priestly order is incorrect. 

K 



146 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

full and direct efficacy of word and Sacrament. At the same 
lime they did not renounce the view that the numerus predes- 
tinatorum (number of the predestinated) may find its earthly 
embodiment in a true, empirical Church. It certainly could 
not but come about, that in the Hussite movement, when once 
the watchword had again been emphatically given forth that 
everything must be reformed according to the law of holy 
Scripture, there should be introduced into the Church the dis- 
order and terror connected with Old Testament socialist and 
apocalyptic ideas ; but such things seldom last beyond the 
third generation, nor did they last longer then. There was a 
falling back upon patience, and the once aggressive enthusiasm 
became changed into silent mistrust and reserve. 

How this Wyclifite conception of the Church, which really 
came into conflict with the Romish only about the Pope and 
the sacrament of penance, and arose from an over-straining of 
the good Catholic principle of the lex Christi (law of Christ), 
can be called evangelical, is difficult to understand. Equally 
with Thomas's conception of the Church it leaves yarz/A aside, as 
Luther understood it ; and it has as its presuppositions, in 
addition to the predestinarian doctrine, the Catholic conception 
of salvation, the Catholic conception of the Sacraments, and the 
Catholic ideal of poverty. It puts an end to the priests who 
govern the world ; but it does not put an end to the priests 
who dispense the Sacraments, who expound the law of God, and 
who alone — by the apostolic life — perfectly fulfil it. Will these 
world-ruling priests not return, if it must really be the highest 
interest of man to prepare himself for the life beyond by means 
of the Sacraments, seeing that that life is not attainable by faith 
alone, and a clear, certain and perfect faith does not fall to the 
lot of every man ? ^ But however certain it is that this question 

^ See Gottschick, I.e., p. 364 f. : " Huss has no other view of salvation than the 
ordinary Catholic one. Man's goal is union with God through visio dei and the love 
dependent thereon. There is preparation on earth for this by means of faith and the 
meritorious fulfilment of the law of love. By faith is understood throughout the 
theoretic assent to a quantum of doctrines; there suffices for a good part of this 
quantum the fides implicita. Faith having value only as fides caritate formata, it 
follows that the chief matter is fulfilment of the law. But the qualification for this 
is dependent on the infusion of grace on the ground of the merit of Christ, a grace 



CHAP. II.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. I47 

can only be answered in the affirmative (as long as the Sacra- 
ments play the chief part in the Church, the priest will be a man 
of power on earth, and as long as the letter of scripture is re- 
garded as the law of Christ, the official interpreters will be the 
ruling authorities in the Church) it is equally certain that the 
Wyclifite conception of the Church represented a great advance. 
The attempt was here made to separate the religious from the 
secular ; moreover, the value of the law of Christ, as something 
spiritual, was placed on a level with the value of the Sacraments, 
nay, the efficacy of all ecclesiastical acts was derived from 
inward Christian disposition ; the whole " objective " right of a 
hierarchy in the Church was shaken ; ^ Christians were most 
urgently reminded that the gospel has to do with life. And this 
did not take place outside theology, as if these were personally- 
formed notions, but on the ground and in the name of the truly 
ecclesiastical theology. 

About the year 1500 Hussitism, as a great movement, had 
run its course. But it exerted an incalculable influence : it 
loosened the hold of the hierarchical papal conception of the 
Church on the hearts and minds of men, and helped to pre- 
pare the way for the great revolution. No doubt at the be- 
ginning of the Reformation the greatest vagueness of view 
prevailed among the really pious in the land : there was no 
wish to part with the Pope, but episcopalist (conciliar) and 

whereby sin is abolished. And Huss never mentions any other way in which this 
takes place than by preaching and the Sacraments, more particularly baptism and 
the Eucharist or the sacrifice of the mass." Cf. the passages quoted by Gottschick, 
I.e., from the treatise de ecclesia, among which those upon fides implicita are speci- 
ally instructive. I. 38 : "Christianus debet fidem aliquaJiter cognoscere." 62: 
** Quantum o^onKtaXfideUm de necessitate salutis explicite credere, non est meum pro 
nunc discutere, cum deus omnipotens suos elcctos secundum gradum fidei multiplicem 
ad se trahit." 259: "Quicunque habuerit fidem caritate formatam ... in 
communi sufficit cum virtute perseverantiie ad salutem. . . , Non exigit deus, 
ut omnes filii sui sint continue pro viatione sua in actu cogitanti particulari de qualibet 
fidei particula (so always quantitatively estimated), sed satis est, quod post posita 
desidia habeant fidem in habitu formatam.*' Wyclif had a similar opinion ("omnia 
sacramenta sensibilia rite admin istrata [but for this there is requisite also, and above 
all, the priest who lives like the apostles] habent efficaciam salutarem "). 

^ The Council of Constance contested the Wyclifite-Hussite propositions that were 
adverse to the Pope, as also the exclusive definition of the Church as universitas 
praed estinatorum. 



148 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

Waldensian-Hussite ideas were widely disseminated.^ A dis- 
tinct settlement was necessary : either the establishment of 
the papal system, or a new view of the Church that should be 
able to furnish a firm basis for the numerous and heavy assaults 
upon that system. The empirico-monarchical conception of the 
Church was challenged by the Episcopalists, the juristic by 
Wyclif and Huss — in this lies the chief importance of these 
men. But for the juristic conception they substituted a 
moralistic. From the latter the former will always develop 
itself again. What was lacking was the conception of a Church 
to which one belongs through living faith. The mere criticising 
of the hierarchy, however much courage that might imply, was 
not all that was needed. Nor was it enough that the legal 
ordinances of the Church should be traced back to their moral 
conditions. For having done this Wyclif and Huss cannot be 
too highly praised. But it must not be forgotten that the 
Church of Christ has to take the criteria for judging what she 
is from Romans V.-VIII. One thing, however, and for our 
purposes the most important, will be made apparent from this 
whole review, namely, that the manifold development of the 
conception of the Church in this period, so far from threatening 
the old dogma, gave it an always firmer lodgment — not, indeed^ 
as a living authority, but as a basis and boundary line. Where 
would the Waldensians and the Hussites, with their appeals to 
the lex Christi, to Scripture and the Apocalypse, have arrived at, 
if they had not been held fast by the quiet but powerful force of 
the ancient dogma ? 

But at this point we may extend our observations still a step 
further. Is it the case, then, that the so-called " Reformers 
before the Reformation " were the only reformers before the 
Reformation, or is it not apparent rather that this designation 
has only a proper meaning when it is applied, not to any one 
phenomenon in the Mediaeval Church, but to the Mediaeval 
Church as a whole ? For the highest level of observation, there 
lies between the Christianity of the Ancient Church and the 

^ Besides the works on the history of the spread of Hussitism (especially von BezoId» 
Zur Gesch. des Husitenthums 1874, and the Studies of Haupt), see the works of 
Keller, which, however, must be used with caution. 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. I49 

Christianity of the Reformation, the Christianity of the Middle 
Ages as the intermediate stage, /.^., as the Pre-Reformation. 
None of its leading tendencies can be dispensed with in the 
picture, not even the hierarchical. The very conception of the 
Church shows that. For those opposing the " Pre- Reformers" 
represented with their Church ideal the certainty that Christ 
has left behind Him on earth a kingdom^ in which He, as the 
exalted One, is present, and the holiness of which does not 
depend on the moral goodness of its members, but on the 
grace which God gives them. This thought they no doubt dis- 
figured and secularised, yet it must not be said that it had 
value for them only in its disfigured form. No, even it was for 
many really an expression of Christian piety. They thought of 
the living and reigning Christ when they thought of the Pope 
and his power, of the bishops and the Church, who reduced the 
whole world to their rule. In this form their faith was a neces- 
sary complement to the individualistic Christianity of theMystics, 
and the Reformation with its thesis of the holy community and 
the kingdom of God, which have Christ in their midst, connected 
itself directly with the Catholic thoughts of Augustine and the 
Middle Ages, after it had learned from Paul and Augustine to 
judge spiritual things spiritually. 

3. On the History of Ecclesiastical Science. 

In connection with the history of piety we have been already 
obliged to enter upon the history of theology ; for piety and 
theology are most intimately related in the Middle Ages. In 
the former chapter also (p. 23 ff.) a sketch of the history of 
science till the close of the twelfth century has been given. 
From the immense amount of material in the thirteenth to the 
fifteenth century only some cardinal points shall be brought 
more prominently to view.^ 

1 See the histories of philosophy by Erdmann, Ueberweg-Heinre (where are the 
fullest lists of literary works), Stock! and Werner (Monograph on Thomas v. Aqu., 
various dissertations on Duns Scotus, Die Scholastik des spateren Mittelalters in 3 
vols., 1881 f . : (i) Johannes Duns Scotus. (2) Die Nachscotistische Scholastik. (3) 
Der Augustinismus des spftteren Mittelalters). Baur, Vorles. ilber die christl. Dog- 



ISO HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

The great advancement of mediaeval science from the begin- 
ning of the thirteenth century was occasioned (i) by the 
immense triumph of the Church and the papacy under Innocent 
III. and his successors ; (2) by the intensification of piety in 
consequence of the Mendicant Orders movement ; ^ (3) by the 
enrichment and extension of general culture, which was partly 
a consequence of inner developments, and partly arose from 
contact with the East, in Palestine, Constantinople, and Spain.- 
Here the acquaintance, now obtained for the first time, with 
the true Aristotle, the teacher of logic, physics, ethics, and 
politics, became of supreme importance. His philosophy, 
understood as dogmatism,^ was hailed as a gospel, or at least as 

mengesch. 2 Bd., p. 199 ff. We owe to Bach a beautiful dissertation on Albertus M., 
distinguished by thorough knowledge and abundant points of view. 

1 On the entrance of the Minorite Order into the scientific movement, see Werner, 
Duns Scotus, p. 4 flf. 

^Cf. Books 6-8 of the History of the Aufklarung by Reuter, especially the 
sections on the Averrhoistic Aufklarung, as well as on the importance of the 
Arabic and Jewish middle-men, also on the influence of the Natural Sciences and 
on the University of Paris in the thirteenth century. The Arabs Avicenna (ob. 1037) 
and Averrhoes (oh. 1198), the former supranaturalistic, the latter pantheistic, in his 
tendency, were the most important commentators on Aristotle, whose works became 
known to the West by means of Spanish Jews. But by Averrhoes, who exercised a 
powerful attraction, Aristotle was in the first instance discredited, so that several 
Church interdicts were issued against him. But it was soon observed that Aristotle, 
so far from favouring pantheism, really refuted it. Scotus Erigcna and Averrhoes — 
his system meant for the Church of the thirteenth century what Gnosticism in the 
second century, Manichseanism in the fourth, Socinianism in the seventeenth, meant 
for Church Christianity, see Renan, Averroes et I'Averroisme — were now regarded as 
the real enemies of Church dogma. Naturalistic pantheism in general now became 
the chief object of persecution ; to oppose it, the supranaturalistic elements were de- 
rived from Aristotelianism, and this Aristotelianism had the widest scope given to it 
(see Schwane, Dogmengesch* des Mittelalters, p. 33 ff". ). Among the Jewish scholars it 
was chiefly Maimonides who influenced the Schoolmen of the thirteenth century. 
Thomas owed very much to him, and in part transcribed him (see Merx, Prophetie 
des Joel, 1879). In this way the juristic-casuistic element in Scholasticism was still 
further strengthened, and pharisaic-talmudic theologoumena crept into mediaeval 
theology, which are partly traceable to the Persian age of Judaism. But besides this, 
Neoplatonic and Aristotelian material found its way to the schoolmen from the 
translations of the Jews, who had rendered the Arabic versions of the Greek philoso- 
phical writings into Latin ; see Bardenhewer, Die Schrift de causis, 1882. 

' In the sense in which Kant exposed and refuted dogmatism. It was only Roger 
Bacon who stoutly fought his way out of these fetters in the thirteenth century ; see 
Reuter, II., p. 67 fiF. 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. IS! 

the necessary introduction to one (" praecursor Christi in 
naturalibus ") and through him the science of the thirteenth 
century received an almost incalculable amount of material, 
and, above all, impulses to master the material. 

The two new forces of commanding importance in the period, 
the Mendicant Orders ^ and Aristotle, had first to achieve a 
position for themselves. At the beginning they met with 
hostility from the old Orders, and from the teachers and 
universities that were in alliance with them. An attitude 
of self-defence was assumed towards both. The new 
Aristotelianism, indeed, came under ecclesiastical proscription, 
and there was a wish to exclude theologians of the Mendicant 
Orders from university chairs. There were always some, too, 
who still were influenced by the attacks in general on the 
scientific-dialectic theology, which had been made by such men 
as John of Salisbury and Walter of St Victor.* But the new 
movement asserted itself with an irresistible energy, and the 
opposition was silenced. 

Yet this was only possible because the new factors really 
furnished nothing new, but completed the triumph of the Church 
over everything spiritual. The new Aristotle, as he was under- 
stood, taught the theory of knowledge, metaphysics and 
politics, which admitted of a surer vindication of dogma against 
such opposition as had formerly appeared, e,g,^ in William of 
Champeaux and Roscellin, and offered a defence against the 

1 Among all the Orders the Dominican was the first to adopt into its rules directions 
as to study (see Denifle, Archiv. fur Litt.-u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters I., p. 
i6sff. 

*Cf. ^^., for the period about 1250 the Chronicle of Salimbene and Michael I.e., 
p. 39 f. That in the Dominican Order itself a tendency had at first to be checked, 
which, after the style of the older Orders, emphasised asceticism so strongly that no 
room was left for study, which indeed described science (including theology) as 
dangerous and pernicious, has been convincingly proved by Wehofer O. P. from the 
book of the Dominican Gerard de Frachet, "Vitas Patrum" (published not long 
after 1256, issued in the Monum. Ord. Frat. Praedic. Historica. Lowen, 1896), and 
from the attitude of Humbert of Romans (General of the Order from 1254 to 1263 ; 
Gorres-Jahrbuch f. Philos. Bd. IX., 1896, p. 17 ff.) That "propter philosophiam " 
one goes to hell or at least — after a great example — receives here already on earth a 
sound cudgelling from angels, was never forgotten in the Catholic Church. The 
founder of the Trappist Order simply attempted to bring into force again an old 
monastic tradition : " study, /.«., philosophy is sin." 



152 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. 11. 

dangers both of an eccentric realism and of an empirical mode 
of thought If it is permissible, nay necessary, to conceive of the 
universals on the one hand, as the archetypes that express the 
cosmos of ideas in the thought of God, then they exist ante 
rem (before the thing) ; if on the other hand they must be 
regarded as simply realised in things (categories and forms) then 
they are in re (in the thing) ; if, finally, it is undeniable that it 
is only by the observation of things that they are obtained, that 
accordingly the intellect derives them from experience, then 
they are post rem (after the thing). In this way it was possible 
to apply to every dogma the epistemological mode of view 
which seemed best fitted to defend it The " qualified " 
realism, which could assume the most different forms, and which 
had been already represented by Abelard, certainly more in a 
spirit of sceptical reserve than with a view to speculative con- 
struction, became dominant in the thirteenth century. But 
what was of most importance was that the great theologians 
who developed it showed even greater energy than their 
predecessors in subordinating the whole structure of thought 
to the principle that all things are to be understood by tracing 
them back to God. 

But the tracing back to God was equivalent to subjecting all 
knowledge to t/ie authority of the Church. The same science which 
displayed an astonishing energy of thought, and through such 
scholars as Thomas made a really important advance upon 
antiquity in the ethical and political sciences, appeared in many 
respects still more fettered than the science of the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries ; for in its view, not only the old dogma (" arti- 
culi fidei "), but the entire department of ecclesiastical practice^ the 
principles of which were traced back to the articuH fidei, wc^ 
absolutely authoritative, and it proceeded much more frankly than 
before on the principle that in particular questions every instance 
of authority had as much weight as a deliberate reflection of the 
understanding. 

It was only in the thirteenth century — and by the theologians 
of the Mendicant Orders — that the whole existing structure of 
ecclesiasticism was theologically vindicated, and its newest 
and most questionable parts, as well as the oldest and 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. I S3 

most important, declared inviolate by" science" ; it was only in the 
thirteenth century that there was introduced that complete inter- 
blending of faith on authority and of science which means that at 
one and the same level there is a working at one time with the 
**credo/' at another time with the "intelligo"; such interblending 
is not yet found in Anselm, for example. Certainly it was still 
theoreticallyheld that theology,resting on revelation, is a (specula- 
tive) science.^ But it was not held as required, nor even as 
possible, to rear on the basis of faith a purely rational structure: 
there was rather an alternating between authority and reason ; 
they were regarded as parallel methods which one employed. 
The object in view indeed continued to be the knowledge that 
culminates in the visio dei ; but there was no longer the wish 
always to eliminate more fully as knowledge advanced the 
element of faith (authority) in order to retain at the last pure 
knowledge ; at all stages, rather, the element of authority was 
held as justifiable and necessary. Nay, there was now the 
conviction that there are two provinces, that of natural theology, 
and that of specific (revealed). The two, certainly, are thought 
of as being in closest harmony ; but yet the conviction has been 
obtained that there are things known, and these, too, the most 
important, which belong simply to revealed theology, and which 
can be inter-related certainly, but not identified with natural 
theology. Natural theology, moreover, must subordinate itself to 
revealed, for theology has its foundation in revelation. In point 
of fact, however, the dogmatic theologian alternated between 

*See the first question in Part I. of the Summa of Thomas; Art. I. : ** Utrum 
sit necessarium prseter philosophicas disciplinas aliam doctrinam haberi." Art. II : 
" Utrum sacra doctrina sit scicntia." Answer: **Sacram doctrinam esse scientiam. 
Sed sciendum est quod duplex est scientiarum genus. Quaedam enim sunt, quae 
procedunt ex principiis notis lumine natural! intellectus sicut Arithmetica ; quaedam 
vero sunt quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superiorisscientiae, sicut Perspectiva 
procedit ex principiis notificatis per Geometriam. . . . £t hoc modo sacra doctrina 
est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientixe, quae scil. est 
scientia dei et beatorum. Unde sicut Musicus credit principia revelata sibi ab Arith- 
metico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a deo." Art. III. : ** Utrum 
sacra doctrina sit una scientia?" Conclusio : "Cum omnia considerata in sacra 
doctrina sub una formali ratione divinae revelationis considerentur, eam unam scientiam 
esse sentiendum est." Artie. IV.: "Utrum s. doctrina sit scientia practica?" 
Conclusio : *' Tametsi s. theologia altioris ordinis sit practica et speculativa, eminenter 
atramque continens, speculativa tamen magis est quam practica," etc. 



1 54 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

reason and revelation, and his structure derived its style from the 
former ; for in particular questions the content of revelation is 
not derived solely from the thought of redemption — however 
truly this, as the visio dei, may be the contemplated end — ^but 
is set forth also in a thousand isolated portions, which are noth- 
ing else than heterogeneous fragments of a real or supposed 
knowledge of the world. It was the effect of holding that very 
conception of the goal of redemption as visio dei that the view 
of the content of revelation threatened to become broken up 
into an incalculable number of things known, zndi^ in spite of the 
still retained title, acquired the character of a natural knowledge, 
of supernatural things. Accordingly there was now introduced 
also the idea of articuli mixti, i,e,, of such elements of knowledge 
as are given both in a natural way and by revelation, only in 
the latter way, however, in perfection. What appeared outlined 
already in Tertullian (see Vol. V. c. ii.) as the distinctive character 
of Western theology, now came to its fullest development. 

From the newly-discovered Aristotle the scholars derived 
courage to advance from the compilation of mere '* sentences " 
to the rearing of entire doctrinal systems. The imposing form 
of the Church also, with the unfolding of its uniform power, may 
have been a co-operating influence here ; for the Scholasticism 
of the thirteenth century presents the same spectacle in the 
sphere of knowledge, which the Church of which it is the servant 
presents in the sphere of human life generally. In the one 
sphere as in the other everything is to be reduced to subjection ; 
in the one as in the other everything is to be brought into a 
harmonious system ; in the one as in the other the position is 
held, tacitly or expressly, that the Church is Christ, and Christ 
is the Church. Thus the theological science of the thirteenth 
century can be described as the submitting to dialectic-systematic 
revision of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical practice^ with the 
view of unfolding them in a system having unity and compre- 
hending all that in the highest sense is worthy of being known, 
with t/ie view of proving the^n, and so of reducing to the service of 
the Church all the forces of the understanding and the whole 
product of science. But most intimately connected with this 
end is the other, namely, the theologian's attaining in this way 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. IS5- 

to the visio (fruitio) dei ; these two ends, indeed, are mutually 
involved ; for all knowledge of Church doctrine and of Church 
practice is knowledge of God — this was taught by the Church 
itself. Now, if the gradual knowledge of God is the only means 
whereby the individual can attain to salvation (visio dei), then 
in theology the objective and subjective aims simply coincide \, 
one serves the Church in serving himself, and the converse is 
equally true. The great Schoolmen by no means felt that they 
wrought as slaves, labouring under compulsion for their masters. 
The only end indeed that was clearly before them was their 
own advancement in the knowledge of God ; but, standing as 
faithful sons within the Church, to which all power was given in 
heaven and on earth, their speculations necessarily served, with 
more or less of intention on their part, to glorify the Church's 
power and give a divine character to all that it did. And yet 
how many things did they come to know, the truth of which is 
entirely independent of the truth of Church theory and practice;, 
how necessary and how helpful was even this period in the 
general history of science and theology ; and how many seeds 
were sown broadcast by the great Schoolmen, of the develop- 
ment of which they did not allow themselves to dream ! Never 
yet in the world's history was any science quite fruitless which 
served God with true devotion. Theology has at any time 
become a hindrance, only when it has lost faith in itself or 
become vacillating. We shall see that this was verified also in 
mediaeval theology. 

For all that has been stated up to this point applies only to 
the pre-Scotist Scholasticism ; it applies above all to Thomas. 
He exercised, moreover, an enduring influence on the period 
that followed, and his influence is still at work at the present 
day. His predecessors and contemporaries have passed out of 
view in him. The Thomist science, as embodied above all in 
the ** Summa," is characterised by the following things : (i) by 
the conviction that religion and theology are essentially of a 
speculative (not practical) nature, that they must therefore be 
imparted and appropriated spiritually, that it is possible so to 
appropriate them, and that ultimately no conflict can arise 
between reason and revelation; (2) by strict adherence to- 



1 56 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

Augustinianism, and in particular to the Augustinian doctrines 
of God, predestination, sin and grace,^ but on the other hand 
by contesting on principle Averrhoism; (3) by a thoroughly 
minute acquaintance with Aristotle, and by a comprehensive and 
strenuous application of the Aristotelian philosophy, so far as 
Augustinianism admitted in any way of this (under the con- 
ception of God the Areopagitic-Aug^stinian view is only 
slightly limited); (4) by a bold vindication of the highest 
ecclesiastical claims by means of an ingenious theory of the 
State, and a wonderfully observant study of the empirical 
tendencies of the papal ecclesiastical and sacramental system. 
Aristotle the politician and Augustine the theologian, two 
enemies, became allies in Thomas; in that consists the im- 
portance of Thomas in the world's history. While he is a 

^Thomas «;hows himself an Augustinian by his estimation also of Holy Scripture. 
Scripture alone was for him absolutely certain revelation. All other authorities he 
held as only relative. Very many passages can be quoted from Thomas to prove 
that the ** formal principle of the reformation" had a representative in the great 
Schoolman. Cf. Holzhey, Die Inspiration d. hi, Schrift in der Anschauung dcs 
Mittelalters, 1895. This book, which did not necessarily require to be written, gives 
an account of the estimation of Holy Scripture on the part of the mediaeval theo- 
logians and sectaries from the period of Charles the Great till the Council of Trent. 
The author remarks very correctly (p. 164 f.) that the view of Holy Scripture, or the 
mode of apprehending the notion of inspiration, does not pass beyond what is fur- 
nished by the Church Fathers, and that even among the theologians from the time of 
Alcuin till the beginning of the sixteenth century the greatest agreement regarding 
Holy Scripture prevailed. But when the author says further, that the doctrine of the 
absolute perspicuity and sufficiency of the Bible finds no conRrmation in the medi- 
aeval Church — for even if expressions of the kind were to be met with among the 
mediaeval theologians, yet the living union with the Church and tradition is at the 
same time presupposed — then that is in one respect a platitude. It is such also (but 
only in one respect) when the author remarks that the Middle Ages always recognised 
the exposition of Holy Scripture as an attribute of the Church. But on the really 
interesting problem Holzhey has scarcely touched, namely whether even in the 
Middle Ages a unique importance does not belong to Scripture as rule for the vita 
Christiana and whether it was not held by very many in this respect as absolutely 
clear and sufficient. That this question is to be answered affirmatively is to me be- 
yond doubt. To the sentence of Duns Scotus : "Sacra scriptura sufficienter continet 
doctrinam necessariam viatori,^* many parallels may be adduced. Besides, there is 
still another question on which Holzhey has scarcely entered : since when was the 
decision of the Church in matters of faith placed as atiother kind of authority vAong- 
side Scripture as of equal weight ? Certainly not yet since Thomas, scarcely only 
since Dun«5, but, as Ritschl likewise (Fides implicita, p. 31 f.) remarks, only since 
Occam, and even since his time not yet generally. 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 157 

theologian and an Augustinian, he is still always an absolute 
thinker full of confidence ; and yet it must not be overlooked 
that in him there are already recognisable the seeds of the 
destruction of the absolute theology. Although bidden, arbit- 
rary and relative elements have already found a place for them- 
selves in him. It is still his aim to express all things in the 
firm and sure categories of the majesty of the deity whose 
pervasive power controls all things, and to prove the strict 
necessity of all theological deliverances : the Christian religion 
is believed in and demonstrated from principles ; but yet at not 
a few points the strength failed, and the thinker was obliged to 
fall back upon the authority which supports the probable,, 
although he understood how to maintain for the whole the 
impression of absolute validity.^ 

1 Anselm proves in part the articuli fidei ; in principle Thomas refuses to do so- 
(Pars. I., Qusest. I., Art. 8) ; yet the ratio bases itself on the articuli fidei in order to 
prove something else. We shall see how, as the development proceeded. Scholastic- 
ism always relied less on ratio in divine things. This may be an appropriate place 
for a short description of the "Summa" (see Portman, Das System der theol. Summe 
des hi. Thomas, Luzern 1885). The i. Part (119 Quscst.) treats of God and the issue 
of things from God, the 2. Part (i. Sect.) of general morality (114 Qwest), the 
2. Part (2. Sect.) of special morality (189 Qusest.) from the point of view of the 
return of the rational creature to God, the 3. Part of Christ and the Sacraments (90 
Quaest.) As a supplement there has been added, from the commentary on the 
Lombard, the concluding part of the doctrine of the Sacraments, and the eschatology 
(102 Qusest.) Every Quaestio contains a number of articuli, and every articulus is 
divided into three parts. First the difhcultates are brought forward, which seem to 
answer in the negative the question propounded, then the authorities (one or more, 
among them here and there also Aristotle), then follows the speculative discussion, 
dealing with principles, and thereafter the solution of the particular difficulties (the 
conclusiones are not formulated by Thomas himself, but by his commentators). The 
scheme corresponds with the Pauline- A ugustinian thought: '* From God to God.*' 
The introduction (Qusest. i) comprises the questions on theology as a science, on 
the subject (object) of theology — God and all else sub ratione dei,— on the methods 
(auctoritas and ratio, theology as doctrina argumentativa, sed *'h£ec doctrina non 
argumentatur ad sua principia probanda, qu£e sunt articuli fidei, sed ex eis procedit 
cui aliquid aliud probandum . . . nam licet locus ab auctoritate qux fundatur super 
ratione humana sit infirmissimus, locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super 
revelatione divina est efficacissimus. Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione 
humana, non quidem ad probandam fidem \jjuia per hoc tolUretur meritumfidei\^ sed 
ad manifestandum aliqua alia, quae traduntur in hac doctrina. Cum enim gratia non 
tollat naturam, sed perficiat, oportet quod naturalis ratio subserviat fidei, sicut et 
naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur caritatL . . . Sacra doctrina utitur 
philosophorum auctoriiatibus quasi eztraneis argumentis et probabilibuSj auctoritatibus 



1S8 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

But was this strict necessity of any service at all to the 
Church? Should the Church not rather have been gratified, 
when the understanding perceived its incapacity to follow up 
the decisions of authority, and therefore abandoned further 

autem canonicae scripturoe uiitur propria et ex necessitate arguendo, auctoritatibus 
autem aliorum doctorum ecclesiae quasi argumentando ex propriis sed probabiliter. 
Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi apostoUs et prophetis fcuta^ qui ccuionicos libros 
scripserunty ncn autem revelationi^ si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta^^ on the 
exposition of Holy Scripture, etc Quoest. 2-27 of the I. Part treat of God's existence 
(five proofs for God), the nature of God (primum movens, ens a se, perfectissimnm, 
actus purus), His attributes. His unity and uniqueness. His knowableness, the name 
of God, further of the inner life-activity in God (of His knowledge, His world of 
ideas. His relation to truth. His life. His will, the expressions of His will, providence 
and predestination) ; lastly, of the outer activity of God or the divine omnipotence, 
and of the divine blessedness. Then follows in Q. 27-44 ^^^ investigation de 
processione divinarum personarum (Trinity); lastly, Q, 44-119, the doctrine of 
creation, and here (i) the origination of things (creation out of nothing, temporality 
of the world) ; (2) division of creation (doctrine of angels, doctrine of the world of 
bodies, doctrine of man, here minute investigations into the substance of the soul, the 
union of body and soul, the powers of the soul, human knowledge ; then concerning 
the creation of man, the divine image in man, paradise and the original state) ; (3) 
the doctrine of the divine government of the world (on angels as means of providence, 
etc.)- The H. Part (i sect.) is grounded entirely on the Aristotelian Ethics. It 
begins with an introduction on man*s end (the bonum = beatitudo = deus ipse = visio 
dei), and proceeds to treat of freedom, the nature of free acts of the will, the 
goodness and badness of acts of the will (to the goodness belongs the rationality of 
the act of the will), merit and guilt (Q. 6-21). Thereon follow investigations into 
the emotional life of man (passiones), which is minutely analysed (Q. 22-48). Now 
only comes the account of the principles of moral action, of ** habitus" or of the 
qualities of the soul. After an introduction (Q. 49 sq.) the doctrine of virtue is 
discussed (divided according to the object into intellectual, moral, and theological 
virtues), the cause of the virtues, their peculiarities (virtue as moderation or the 
"middle" course between two extremes) and the culmination of the virtues in the 
gifts of the Holy Ghost (the eight beatitudes and the fruits of the Spirit). This b 
followed by the doctrines of the nature of sin (contrary to reason and nature), of the 
division of sins, of the relation of sins to one another, of the subject (the will), the 
causes (inner and outer) of sin, of original sin and its effects (the deterioration of 
nature, darkening = macula, the reatus poena!, mortal sins and venial sins). All this 
belongs to the inner principles of moral conduct. This part concludes with the 
discussion of the outer principles, namely, the law and grace. The "law" is 
discussed^on all f-ides, as eternal law (that is, the law according to which God 
Himself acts, and whose reflected rays are all laws valid for the creatures), as natural 
law, as human law, as Old Testament and New Testament law, and as law of 
"counsels" for special perfection. But the New Testament law, as it is inward, and 
infused by grace, is the law of grace, and thu . the way is prepared for passing to the 
second outer principle of moral acts — to grace which gives man aid for the good, Grace 
is the outer principle of the supernatural good ; in the intellectual sphere it is not 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 1 59 

effort? To this question the reply must not be absolutely 
affirmative, but still less must it be negative. The Church, as it 
then already was, and as it still is to-day, needs both things ; it 

necessary for the knowledge of natural truths, but it is so for the knowledge of the 
supernatural ; it is likewise requisite for ability to do the supernatural good. Here 
there is a keen polemic against Pelagianism : man cannot by naturally good acts even 
prepare himself sufficiently for grace ; he can neither convert himself, nor continue 
always steadfast in goodness. An inquiry into the nature, division, causes, and effects 
of grace (doctrine of justification, doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works), 
forms the conclusion. The II. Part, 2. section now contains special ethics, namely, 
first, the precise statement of the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), the 
commands corresponding to these virtues, and the sins against them, then the 
discussion of the cardinal virtues, wisdom, righteousness (here in Q. 57-123 the most 
exhaustive account is given, inasmuch as religiousness as a whole is placed under this 
term), courage, and moderation ; lastly, the discussion of the special virtues, i.e.y of 
the gifts of grace and duties of station (Q. 171-189). Under this last title there are 
dealt with (a) the charisms, (b) the two forms of life (the contemplative and the 
active), (c) the stations of perfection (namely, the station of the bishops as the virtuosi 
in neighbourly love, and the station of the monks, with special reference to the 
Mendicant monks). The III. Part now aims at showing by what provision and 
means the return of the rational creature to God has become possible by way of faith, 
hope, and love, namely, through Christ and the Sacraments. To this there is the 
intention to add eschatology. Hence there is a treatment here (i) of Christ, in 
particular of His incarnation and His natures. After a discussion of the necessity of 
the incarnation (on account of sin, and since a satisfactio de condigno was requisite) 
for the removal of original sin, the personal unity, the divine person, of Christ, and 
His human nature are set forth (in which connection, Q. 8, there is reference to the 
Church as the mystic body of Christ, and the thought of **Christus" as the head of 
mankind is strongly accentuated) ; then thie consequences of the personal union 
<conimunicatio idiomatum) and all bearings of the constitution of the Godman are 
explained. On this follows (2) a section on the work of Christ, which, however, 
contains almost no speculation whatever, but illustrates in an edifying way the history 
of Christ from his entrance into the world (Q. 27-31, the doctrine of Mary). In 
connection with the suffering and death of Christ, the point of view of the "con- 
veniens " as distinguished from the ** necessarium" has special prominence given to 
it. Immediately after the work of Christ the doctrine of the Sacraments is added 
(Q. 60 sq.) ; for redemption is imparted to individuals only through the Sacraments, 
which have their efficacy from Christ, and through which men are incorporated into 
Christ. The statement begins with the general doctrine of the Sacraments (nature, 
necessity, effect, cause, number, connection) ; then follows the discussion of baptism, 
confirmation, the eucharist, and penance. Here Thomas was obliged to lay down 
his pen. It was not granted to him to complete his " Summa." What was still 
wanting, as has been remarked, was supplied from his other works ; but in this 
supplement we miss somewhat of the strictness marking the expositions given by 
himself in the Summa, since it was mainly constructed out of notes and excursus on 
the text of the Lombard. Observe lastly, that in the Summa repetitions are not only 
not avoided, but occur to an incalculable extent. 



l6o HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

is indispensable to it that its articuli fidei and modes of practice 
be also proved, and their rationality brought to view ; but it is 
still more needful to it that there be a blind surrender to its 
authority. 

In this respect there was still obviously too little done by 
Thomas. In him, the determination of the relation of ratio to 
auctoritas is, indeed, marked by a quite special amount of con- 
fusion, the claims of faith (as faith on authority) and of know- 
ledge receive no elucidation whatever, not to speak of reconcilia- 
tion, and he stated not a few propositions in which there was a 
complete surrender to authority, that " faith " might not be 
deprived of its " merit " (see the sentence quoted above : 
" Sacred doctrine, however, uses human reason also, not indeed 
for proving faith, for through this the merit of faith would be 
lost " [Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana, non 
quidem ad probandam fidem, quia per hoc toUeretur meritum 
fidei]). Yet his real interest in theology is still the same as 
that of Augustine. Theology is cognition of God in the strict 
sense ; the necessity, which is accentuated in God, must also 
pervade the whole cognition of Him. The articuli fidei, and all 
results of world-knowledge, must be merged in the unity of this 
knowledge which truly liberates the soul and leads it back to 
God. At bottom the imposing and complicated system is 
extremely simple. Just as the perfect Gothic Cathedral, from 
its exhibiting what is really an organic style, expresses a single 
architectural thought, and subordinates all to this, even making 
all practical needs of worship serviceable to it, so this structure 
of thought, although all ecclesiastical doctrines are submissively 
and faithfully taken account of, still proclaims the one thought, 
that the soul has had its origin in God, and returns to Him 
through Christ, and even the Augustinian-Areopagite turn 
given to this thought, that God is all in all, is not denied by 
Thomas. 

But this attitude is dangerous. There will always be a fresh 
development from it of the " Spurious Mysticism," as the 
Catholics call it, in which the subject is eager to go his own 
way, and avoids complete dependence upon the Church. Never- 
theless, the course of scientific development came to be helpful 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. l6l 

to the Church, and we may almost say that the Church here 
gathered figs of thistles. The assiduous study of Aristotle, and 
the keener perception gained through philosophy and observa- 
tion, weakened the confidence of the theologians regarding the 
rationality and strict necessity of the revealed articles of faith. 
They began to forego revising them by means of reason, and 
subordinating them as component parts of a system to a 
uniform thought Their scientific sense was strengthened, and 
when they now turned to the revealed tenets, they found in 
them, not necessity, but arbitrariness. Moreover, the further 
they advanced in psychology and secular science and discovered 
what cognition really is, the more sceptical they became towards 
the " general " : " latet dolus in generalibus " (deception lurks 
under general conceptions). They began to part with their 
inward interest in the general, and their faith in it. The " idea," 
which is to be regarded as " substance," and the " necessity " of 
the general, disappeared for them ; they lost confidence in the 
knowledge that knows everything. The particular, in its con- 
crete expression, acquired interest for them : will rules the 
world, the will of God and the will of the individual, not an in- 
comprehensible substance, or a universal intellect that is the 
product of construction. This immense revolution is represented 
in mediaeval science by Duns Scotus, the acutest scholastic 
thinker ; ^ but only with Occam did it attain completion. 

We should expect that the result of this revolution would 
have been either a protest against the Church doctrine, or an 
attempt to test it by its foundations, and to subject it to critical 

^ See Baur, I.e. II., p. 235 : '*The thorough reasonableness of the ecclesiastical 
faith, or the conviction that for all doctrines of the ecclesiastical system some kind of 
rationes can \ie discovered, by which they are established even for the thinking 
reason, was the fundamental presupposition of Scholasticism. But aifter Scholasticism 
had risen to its highest point in Thomas and Bonaventura, it became itself doubtful 
again of this presupposition. This very important turning-point in the history of 
Scholasticism, after which it tended increasingly to fall to pieces, is represented by 
Duns Scotus.*' (Doctrine of double truth as consequence of the Fall !) Besides 
Duns Scotus, and after him, it was chiefly the doctor resolutissimns Durandus who, 
at Brst a Thomist, passed over to Nominalism and obtained currency for its mode 
of thought (see his commentary on the Lombard). He worked in the first third of 
the fourteenth century ; on him see Werner in the 2. toL of the " Scholastik des 
spateren Mittelalters." 

L 



1 62 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

reconstruction. But it was 200 years before these results 
followed, in Socinianism on the one hand, and in the Reforma- 
tion theology on the other. What happened at first was quite 
different : there was a strengthening of the authority of the 
Churchy andy along with full submission to it, a laying to its 
account of responsibility for the articles of faith and for the 
principles of its prentice} What was once supported by reason 
in league with authority must now be supported by the latter 
alone. Yet this conversion of things was felt to be by no 
means an act of despair, but to be an obviously required act of 
obedience to the Church, so complete was the supremacy of the 
latter over the souls of men, even though at the time it might 
be in the deepest debasement. 

When Nominalism obtained supremacy in theology and in 
the Church, the ground was prepared for the threefold develop- 
ment of doctrine in the future : Post-Tridentine Catholicism, 
Protestantism and Socinianism are to be understood from this 
point of view.* 

Nominalism exhibits on one side a number of outstanding 
excellences : it had come to see that religion is something 
different from knowledge and philosophy ; it had also discovered 
the importance of the concrete as compared with hollow abstrac- 



^ Even the sufficiency of the Bible was doubted by Duns (against Thomas). 

'^ Nominalism only achieved its position in the Church after a hard struggle. From 
the days of Roscellin it was viewed with suspicion, and the appearing of Occam in its 
support could not be in its favour (Occam's writings prohibited in 1389 by the 
University of Paris). But from the middle of the fourteenth century it established 
itself, and even Dominicans — although the controversy between Thomists and 
Scoiists continued — became advocates of it. Indeed, when Wyclif and other 
Reformers (Augustinians) again adopted realism, a new chapter began. Realism 
now, from the close of the fourteenth century, became ecclesiastically suspected (on 
account of the spiritualism, the determinism, and the intellectualistic mysticism, which 
seemed to endanger ecclesiasticism). The most important representatives of Post- 
Scotistic Scholasticism are Petrus Aureolus, John of Baconthorp, Durandus, and 
Occam. On the "theological mode of thought and the general mental habit" of 
these scholars, see Werner, Nachscotist. Scholastik, p. 21 ff. On the Thomist 
scrutiny applied by Caprcolus to Post-Scotistic Scholasticism, see ibid., p. 438 ff. 
That Nominalism, in spite of its dogmatic probabilism, did not, at least at the 
beginning, weaken dogma, is best illustrated by the fanatical attack on the peculiar 
doctrine of Pope John XXII. 



CHAP. TL] history OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 163 

tions, and to its perception of this it gave brilliant expression,' 
e,g,^ in psychology ; through recognising the importance of will, 
and giving prominence to this factor even in God, it strongly 
accentuated the personality of God, and so prepared the way 
for the suppression of that Areopagite theology, from which the 
danger always arose of its causing the world and the reasonable 
creature to disappear in God ;* finally, by placing restrictions 
on speculation it brought out more clearly the positiveness of 
historic religion. But this progress in discernment was dearly 
purchased by two heavy sacrifices : first, with the surrender of 
the assurance that an absolute accordant knowledge could be 
attained, there was also surrendered the assurance of the cate- 
gorical imperative, of the strict necessity of the moral in God, 
and of the moral law ; and secondly, among the historic magni* 
tudes to which it submitted itself, it included the Church with 
its entire apparatus — the commands of the religious and moral 
are arbitrary^ but the commands of t/ie Church are absolute. The 
haven of rest amidst the doubts and uncertainties of the under- 
standing and of the soul is t/te authority of the Church. 

Neither the latter nor the former was, strictly speaking, an 
innovation.* Through the institution of penance an uncertainty 
about the moral had for long become widely diffused : it was 
only a question of expressing in theory what had for centuries 
been the fundamental thought in practice — the sovereign right of 
casuistry} Moreover, the contradictory mode of procedure, 

^ See Siebeck, Die AnPange der neueren Psychologie in der Scholastik, in the 
Zeitschr. f. Philos. u. philos. Kritik, 1888, 1889. 

3 Duns also rejected the Thomist idea that in created things the ab<^lute divine 
original form is pictured forth, and, under the direction of Aristotle, passed over to a 
naturalistic doctrine of the world. 

' Still less, as frequently happens, is the Jesuit Order, with its casuistic dogmatic 
and ethic, to be made accountable here, as if it was the first to introduce the innova- 
ti(m. This Order simply entered into the inheritance of mediaeval Nominalism. 

* For the speculative Scholasticism there was substituted the empirico-casuistic. 
The Nominalists sought to show, with an immense expenditure of acuteness and 
speculation^ that there could not be a speculative Scholasticism. When they had 
furnished this " proof," there remained over purely hollow forms, which were bound 
to collapse, or could be maintained only through the compulsory force of a powerful 
institution. Wnat was ttot brought within the view of Nominalism, in spite of all its 
progress, was the idea of personality (see for the first time the Renaissance), and 
•consequently the person of Christ (see the Reformation), and above all, history (see 



164 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

which the great Schoolmen (Thomas at the head of them), in 
obedience to the spirit of jurisprudence, applied to each particular 
dogma and each ethical position, necessarily had the effect of 
shaking the conviction that there is something absolutely valid. 
If, as any page of Thomas will suggest, from two to twelve 
grounds can be adduced for every heresy and for many immoral 
assertions — if, e.g,^ there are a dozen grounds on which it may 
be alleged that simplex fornicatio is no mortal sin (Thomas), 
how can the belief be firmly maintained in face of this that it 
must nevertheless be regarded as such ? 

From the conflict between yes and no will there always result 
certainty on behalf of the answer which the dogmatic theologian 
prefers ? How can certainty be reckoned on at all, so long as 
there is still one ground only for the counter position, and so 
long as the one ground cannot be shown which alone is valid ? 
Nominalism only continued here what Realism had begun ; it 
merely did still more in the way of differentiating and dis- 
tinguishing ; it extended the recognised method of the acute 
advocate to ever new fields, to the doctrine of God, to the 
doctrines of creation and providence, to the holiness and the 
honour of God, to sin and reconciliation, and it always came to 
the conclusions, (i) that all is relative and arbitrary — but even 
in Thomas's dogmatic already much that is very important in 
the doctrine of religion is only " conveniens " ; (2) that the 
doctrines of revealed religion conflict with natural theology, with 
the thought of the understanding about God and the world 
(doctrine of double truth). Finally, when Nominalism taught 
that, since belief (credere) and understanding (intelligere) cannot 
be reconciled, there must be a blind surrender to the authority 
of the Church, and that it is Justin this blind obedience that 
both the nature, and also the merits of faith consist, here also it 
only wrought out fully a general Catholic theorem; for Tertullian 
had as little doubt as Thomas that all faith begins with sub- 

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries). For it the place of history was still occupied 
always by the rigid Church, It is not otherwise still to-day with the science of the 
Jesuits. They consistently trifle with history, and can treat it, in the tone of a man 
of the world, with a certain amusement and easy scorn, when once they have estab- 
ished the things which the conception of the Church requires to be established. 



I 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 16$ 

mission. Though afterwards — from the time of Augustine — many 
considerations had been adduced for modifying the original 
theorem and changing faith into inward assent and love, never- 
theless the old position remained the same, that faith is originally 
obedience, and that in this it has its initial merit. But if it is 
obedience, then it is fides implicita^ i.e.y submission is enough. 
When the later Nominalism declared with increasing distinctness 
the sufficiency of fides implicita^ or laid it at the foundation of its 
tJuological reflections^ because many truths of faith, taken in 
general, or as dealt with by individuals, do not admit of being 
accepted in any other way, it only gave to an old Catholic thought 
a thoroughly logical expression ; ^ for the danger of transforming 

^ The juristic Popes from Gregory VII. onwards, especially the Popes of the 
thirteenth century, anticipated the Nominalist doctrine of fides implicita : ** In his 
commentary on the Decretals (in lib. I., c. I de summa trinitate et fide Catholica) 
Innocent IV. laid down two momentous rules. First, that it is enough for the laity 
to believe in a God who recompenses, but with regard to everything else, of dogma 
or moral doctrine, merely to believe implicitly, that is to think, and to say, I believe 
what the Church believes. Second, that a cleric must obey even a Pope who issues 
an unrighteous command" (Dollinger, Akad. Vortrage II., p. 419). The latter 
position does not interest us here ; there is interest, however, in the more precise 
definition of the former riven by Innocent, (i) that the lower clergy, who cannot 
carry on the study of theology, are to be regarded as laymen ; only they must believe 
in transubstantiation ; (2) that an error with regard to Christian doctrine (the doctrine 
of the Trinity even) does not do harm to a layman, if he at the same time believes 
(believes erroneously) that he holds to the doctrine of the Church. Ritschl (Fides 
implicita, 1890) has dealt more minutely with this important doctrine. He shows 
that it originated from a passage of the Lombard (1. III., dist. 25). But the termino- 
logy, the range and the validity of the fides implicita remained uncertain among the 
theologians and Popes till the end of the thirteenth century. The great teachers of 
the thirteenth century (above all Thomas) confined it within narrow limits, and in 
this contradicted the Popes (even Innocent III. comes under consideration ; see 
Ritschl, p. 5 f.)* Even Duns differs little from Thomas (p. 20 ff.). But Occam 
reverted to the exposition of Innocent IV. (p. 30 f.); nay, although he is a doctor, he 
claims fides implicita for himself (with regard to the doctrine of the Eucharist) : 
" quidquid Komana ecclesia credit, hoc solum et non aliud vel explicite vel implicite 
credo." Occam wishes to get free play for his doctrine of the Eucharist, which 
diverges from the traditional view ; he saves himself therefore by roundly acknow- 
ledging the Church doctrine, that he may then make his divergence appear as a 
theological experiment. Here therefore the fides implicita is turned to account for 
another purpose. It is remarkable that in its original purpose it was rejected (no 
doubt on account of Thomas) by Gregory XI. (against Raymund LuUus) ; but by 
Biel it is again accepted, and treated apparently with reserve, but in the end there is 
seen just in it the proof of fides as infusa (as the work of God). Neither Occam nor 
Biel wishes by this to treat dogma ironically, on the contrary they show their want 



1 66 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

religion into an ecclesiastical regime was at no time absent from 
Western Catholicism.' 

What has already been briefly hinted at above may be dis- 
tinctly stated here — the problem was the elimination of Angus- 
iinianism from the ecclesiastical doctrine. The whole turning from 
Realism to Nominalism can be represented tluologically under 
this heading. Augustine falls and Aristotle rises — ostensibly 
not in theology indeed, but only in the field of world-knowledge, 
yet as a fact in theology as well ; for no one can keep 

of inner freedom in relation to dogma ; but when Laurentius Valla winds up his 
critical supplementings with the assertion that he believes as mother Church does, the 
irony is manifest In what way the fides implicita extended into the period of the 
Reformation has been shown by Kitschl, p. 40 flf., who also traces out the doctrine 
among later Catholic teachers. That there is an element of truth in the recognition 
of the fides implicita is easily seen ; but it is not easy to define theologically what is 
right in it. Where value is attached to the mere act of obedience, or where, for that 
part, there is also something of merit attributed to it, the limit of what is correct is 
transgressed. 

^ Into the philosophy of Duns Scolus (see Werner, I.e., and the summary in the 
article by Dorner in IIerzog*s R.-E., 2 ed.) ami of Occam (see Wagemann in the 
R.-E.) I cannot here enter further. Important theological doctrines of both will £ail 
to be spoken of in the following section. It is well known that Duns Scotus himself 
was not yet a Nominalist, but prepared the way for applyinpthis theory of knowledge 
to dogmatics. He already emphasised the independence of the secular sciences 
(even of metaphysics) as over against theology, while in general he brought out much 
more clearly the independence of the world (in continual discussions with Thomas) 
as over against God. To balance this he gives wide scope to the arbitrary will of 
God as over against the world. Yet that this opinion may not lead to everything 
being plunged in uncertainty, the knowledge of God derived from revelation (as dis- 
tinguished from rational knowledge) is strongly accentuated. In Dans we still 
observe the struggle of the principle of reason with the principle of arbitrariness 
tempered by revelation and made conceivable ; in Occam the latter has triumphed. 
To the understanding, which Occam brings into court against dogma, the task is 
assigned of showing that logic and physics cannot be applied to the articles of faith, 
and to the supernatural objects that answer to them. All doctrines of faith are full of 
contradictions ; but so also it roust be, according to Occam ; for only in this way do 
they show themselves to be declarations about a super-sensible world, which to the 
understanding is a miracle. This theologian has been misunderstood, when his 
criticism of dogma has been taken as suggesting the irony of the doubter. If, after 
proving the doctrine of transubstantiation impossible, he finally holds it as more 
probable than any other doctrine, because the Church has fixed it, and because the 
omnipotence of God appears in it most unlimitedly, /.^., because it is the most 
irrational doctrine that can be thought of, in this he is severely in earnest, however 
much he might like to maintain his own dialectic doctrine on this point And what 
holds good of the doctrine of the Supper holds good also of all other cardinal 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 167 

metaphysics and theology entirely asunder, and the theological 
doctrines of tlie Nominalists prove that, while they have 
reverently called a halt before the old dogmas, after having 
shown them irrational, on the other hand they have revised in a 
new-fashioned way the circle of the new, and really living, 
doctrines (Sacraments, appropriation of salvation). This work 
directed itself against Augustine, in its directing itself against 
Thomas. 

We have frequently pointed out already, that the history of 
Church doctrine in the West was a much disguised history of 
struggle against Augustine. His spirit and his piety 
undoubtedly rose far above the average of ecclesiasticism, and 
the new discoveries which he made were in many ways incon- 
venient to the Church as an ecclesiastical institution, and did 
not harmonise with its tendencies. No doubt the Church had 
accepted Augustinianism, but with the secret reservation that it 
was to be moulded by its own mode of thought We have seen 
to what extent there was success in that in the period that ends, 
and in the period that begins, with Gregory the Great. 
Gottschalk already experienced what it costs in Catholicism to 
represent Augustinianism. In the time that followed there was 
developed in the sacramental and penance systems a practice 
and mode of thought that was always the more plainly in 
conflict with Augustinianism ; all the more important was the 
fact that the Dominican Order, and especially Thomas, sought to 
rejuvenate the theology of Augustine. Duns Scotus and the 
Nominalist theology directed themselves in the first instance 
against Augustine's philosophy of religion, against those 
doctrines of the first and last things, which gravitated so strongly 
to pantheism. But in controverting these doctrines, and shak- 
ing confidence in the doctrine of God as the All-One, they also 

doctrines of the Church. Unreasonableness and authority are in a certain sense the 
stamp of truth. That is also a positivism, but it is the positivism whose sins have 
fully developed. Here, too, it applies, that one abyss calls up another. The Pre' 
Nominalist theology had loaded reason with a burden of speculative monstroitities, 
and at the same time required it to bear the whole weight of religion ; the sobered 
ratio abandoned entirely the thought of a \oyucii XaLTpela^ became always more pre- 
pared to recognise the faith of ignorant submission as religion, and fell back on 
knowledge of the world. On Biel, see Linsenmaun in the Tiib. Quartalschr., 1865. 



1 68 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. H. 

shook confidence, for themselves and others, in the Augustinian 
doctrines of grace and sin, which certainly had the closest 
connection with his doctrine of God. These Nominalists, who 
(following Duns Scotus) always insisted that reason relates to 
the realm of the worldly, and that in spiritual things there must 
simply be a following the traditional authority of revelation, 
that the understanding, therefore, must be left out of play, really 
wrought in a most vigorous way, and with the utmost use of the 
** understanding," within the lines of the Church doctrine. 
Under certain circumstances " not to speculate " leads also to a 
metaphysic, or at least does not hinder a traditional speculation 
from being corrected and transformed in many of its details, and 
so also in its entire cast. At any rate this principle did not pre- 
vent the Nominalist theologians from revising the existing dogma 
under the protection of authority. But not only did this work 
now acquire an entirely external, formalistic character, but there 
were also introduced into everything the principles of an 
arbitrary morality, of the " conveniens " too, the expedient and 
the relative. One might say, that the principles of a cosmopolitan 
diplomacy in matters of religion and morals were applied to 
objective religion and to subjective religious life. God is not 
quite so strict, and not quite so holy, as He might be imagined 
to be ; sin is not quite so bad as it appears to be to the very 
tender conscience ; guilt is not immeasurably great ; redemption 
by Christ, taken as a whole, and in its parts, is very serviceable, 
but not really necessary; faith does not require to be full 
surrender, and even of love a certain amount is really enough. 
That is the " Aristotelianism " of the Nominalistic Schoolmen, 
which Luther declared to be the root of all mischief in the 
Church ; but that is also the " Aristotelianism *' which must be 
most welcome to the hierarchy ; for here they hold the key of 
the position, seeing that they determine how strict God is, how 
heinous sin is, etc. That at the same time they neither can nor 
will part entirely with Augustinianism (Thomism) was remarked 
above. But they determine where it is to come in, and they 
showed that they watched jealously the extent to which it was 
applied. 

In the Pelagianism and Probabilism of Nominalism there lies 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 169 

the express apostasy from Augustinianism.^ But just because 
the apostasy was so manifest, there could not fail to be a certain 
reaction — though certainly no longer a strong one — in the 
•Church. Not only did the Dominican Order, in their defending 
the theology of their great teacher, Thomas, persistently defend 
Augustine also (though not, as a rule, in the most important 
points), but men also appeared in the fourteenth and fifteenth 
•centuries who observed the Pelagian tendency of Nominalism, 
and strenuously resisted it in the spirit of Augustine.* Here 
Bradwardine must first be mentioned (ob. 1349) who placed the 
entire Augustine, together with the predestination doctrine, in 
strong opposition to the Pelagian tendency of the period.' On 

1 Also from the ancient Church and from dogma in its original sense as a whole. 
Whoever transforms all dogmatic and ethic into casuistry, thereby proves that he is 
no more inwaidly, but only outwardly, bound. 

- Werner has the credit of having described the reaction of Augustinianism in the 
third vol. of his **Scholastik des Spateren Mittelaltcrs." Yet his account is by no 
means complete. In pp. 1-232 he treats of "the representation of the Scholastic 
Augustinianism given by the mediaeval Augustinian- Hermit School," i.e.^ almost ex- 
•clusively of the doctrines of i£gidius (ob. 1315)1 the great defender of Thomas, and 
of Gregory of Rimini ; then, in pp. 234-306, of Bradwardine's doctrine. Stock 1 also 
goes into the Augustinianism of the fifteenth century, but in his own way. More- 
over, Werner will not admit a rejuvenated Augustinianism. **The earlier and later 
attempts to obtain a specific Augustinianism fall under different points of view, 
according as they signify a reaction against the enfeebling and externalising of the 
Christian ecclesiastical thought of salvation, or the opposition, supported by the name 
of Augustine, of a resuscitated one-sided Platonism to Aristotelianism, or, finally, as 
they arose from a vague fusion of the respect for Augustine in the Church generally, 
>vith the authority of the head and leader of a particular school. It was to such a vague 
fusion that the Mediaeval Order-theology of the Augustinian Hermits (?) owed its 
•origin, which came into existence as schola iEgidiana, and, under many changes, 
continued to exist till last century " (p. 8 f. ). 

*See Lechler, Wiclif I. Bd., and the same author's monograph on Bradwardine, 
1S63. Bradwardine made a further endeavour to create a philosophy adequate to the 
■Christian conception of God, and on that account went back on the Augustinian 
Anselmic speculation as regards an absolutely necessary and perfect being, from which 
all that is and can be is to be deduced. But yet he shows himself to be dependent 
on Duns in this, that he represents God and the world exclusively under the contrast 
of the necessary and the contingent (see his book de causa dei adv. Pelag., Werner 
pp. 255 ff. 299), while in other respects also very strong influences of Nominalism are 
discernible in him. Yet these influences disapp)ear behind the main tendency, which 
is directed to showing the "immediate unity and coincidence of theological and 
philosophical thought," and to restoring Augustine's doctrine of grace together with 
Determinism. (" All willing in God is absolute substance.'*) Werner will have it 



I70 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

him Wyclif was dependent as a theologian, and as Huss took all 
his theological thoughts from Wyclif, and introduced them into 
Bohemia and Germany, Bradwardine is really to be signalized 
as the theologian who gave the impulse to the Augustinian 
reactions that accompanied the history of the Church till the 
time of Staupitz and Luther, and that prepared the way for the 
Reformation. In the fifteenth century the men were numerous, 
and some of them influential too, who, standing on the shoulders 
of Augustine, set themselves in opposition to Pel^ianism. But 
they neither overthrew, nor wished to overthrow, the strong 
basis of the Nominalist doctrine, the authority of the Church. 
Moreover, Augustinianism exercised an influence in many ways 
on the reform parties and sects ; but as no new theology 
resulted, so also all these efforts led to no Reformation. The 
Augustinians still allowed a wide scope to the fides implicita 
and the Sacraments, because even they believed in the idol of 
Church authority. The reigning theology remained unshaken 
so long as it was not assailed at the root. Even attacks so 
energetic as those of Wesel and Wessel passed without general 
effect.^ But the fact is unmistakable, that in the course of the 
fifteenth century the Nominalist Scholasticism fell steadily into 
disrepute. While the period revelled in new, fresh impressions 
and perceptions, that theological art became always more 
formalistic, and its barren industry was always the more keenly 
felt. While the rediscovered Platonism was being absorbed 
with delight, that art still lived under the impulses of the 
Aristotle who had arisen 250 years before. The spirit of 
the Renaissance and of Humanism was in its innermost nature 
alien to the old Scholasticism : for it had no wish for formulae 

that he has proved that Bradwardine is no Thomist, but that he reverts to the pre- 
Thomist Scholasticism. That is right in so far as Bradwardine is a lo^cal Augustinian. 
But Werner has an interest in emphasising as strongly as possible the peripatetic 
elements in Thomas ; for only when these are emphasised in a one-sided way can 
Thomas continue to be the normal theologian. ** According to the 'universal feeling* 
the Aristotelian basis was indispensable for the ends of a methodically conducted theo- 
logical scholastic science, and as a rational restraint upon giving a false internal 
character lo the Christian ecclesiastical religious consciousness " (p. 305). 

1 Even the rejection of all philosophy and of the whole of Scholasticism, of which 
we have an instance in Pupper of Goch (O. Clemen, l.c. p. 135 ff.) — whom Luther 
described as ** Vere Germanus el gnosios theologus " — changed nothing. 



CHAP. IL] history OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 17I 

syllogisms, and authorities ; it wished neither the darkness nor 
the illumination of the "Aristotelian" Scholasticism, but was 
eager for life^ that can be reproduced in feelings and for 
perceptions that elevate above the common world and the 
common art of living.^ For the poets and humanists — though 
not for all, yet certainly for the most of them — the ecclesiastical 
theology, as represented in the Scholastic labours of the School- 
men, was like stagnant, filthy water. But still there was always 
the endeavour to find the redeemers in antiquity. Plato^ at 
length the true Plato, was discovered, revered and deified. It 
was not by chance that the Platonic reaction coincided with the 
Augustinian in the fifteenth century ; for the two great spirits 
of ancient times had an elective affinity — Plato's Dialogues and 
Augustine's Confessions are not incapable of being united. The 
influence of Plato and Augustine guided all the movements in 
the fields of science and theology in the fifteenth century that 
rose against a Scholasticism which, in spite of its rich perceptions,, 
had become fossilised and hollow, and had lost touch with the 
needs of the inner life and of the present time. The reflection 
of the Germans was more serious than that of the Italians and 
French. In the last third of the fifteenth century Germany took 
the lead in thought and scholarship. The Romanic nations did 
not produce in the fifteenth century a man like Nicolas of Cusa.*^ 
Nicolas was the precursor and leader of all the distinguished 
men who, in the following century, starting from the Platonic 
view of the world, brought so strong and fresh a current of real 
illuminism into the world. Though fantastical in many ways 
and even greatly interested in magic and ghosts, some of them 
at once discoverers and charlatans, these men laid, nevertheless, 
the basis for the scientific (even experimental) observation of 
nature, and were the restorers of scientific thought. Assurance 
of the unity of all things and the bold flight of imagination — both 
of which had been lost by scholastic wisdom — made the new 

1 Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italibn. 4. Aufl., 1885. Voigt,. 
Wiederbelebung des class. Alterthums. 2 Aufl. 2 Bde., 1880 f. 

s See Stockl, I.e., Janssen, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes 6d. I., Clemens, Giordano> 
Bruno u. N. v. K., 1847. Storz, Die specul. Gotteslehre des. N. v. K. in the theol. 
Quartalschr., 1873, I. Laurentius Valla is superior to Nicolas as a critic, but other- 
wise not on a level with him. 



172 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CUAP. II. 

science possible. This science by no means arose because 
Nominalism, or the philosophy of the great student of nature, 
Aristotle, as it was then treated, was always growing more 
•empirical, and gradually developed itself into exact science, but a 
new spirit passed over the withered leaves of Scholasticism, 
scattered them boldly to the four winds, and derived confidence 
and power for gathering out of nature and history their secrets, 
from the living speculations of Plato that grasp the whole man, 
from the original historic sources now discovered, and from con- 
verse with the living reality. 

By theology little advantage, certainly, was derived from this 
in the fifteenth century. The Italian Humanists, the fathers of 
this European movement, practically took nothing to do with it 
— at the most they instituted some historical investigations, with 
the view of annoying the priests and monks (Laurentius Valla : 
favours from Constantino, origin of the Apostolic Symbol, 
writings of the Areopagite) — and even the Germans made no 
real contributions to progress." One could help all other 
sciences by going back upon antiquity, but not theology. What 
it could learn from Plato and the Neoplatonists it had learned 
long before. When men like Nicolas of Cusa sought to release 
it from the embraces of the Schoolmen, they themselves knew of 
no better form for it than that which had been given to it by 
Augustine and Mystics like Eckhart. But trial had been made 
of this form of long time. Just because it appeared unsatis- 
factory, and there was an unwillingness any longer to breathe in 
this fine fog, there had been, in course of time, a passing over to 
Nominalism. Now, there must be a reverting to the beginning 
— though it might be better understood. Another prescription 
was not offered. Theology seemed doomed to move helplessly 
in a circle ; fundamentally it remained as it was ; for the iron 
ecclesiastical authority remained. Then came the help, not from 
Aristotle, nor even from Plato and Augustine, but from the con- 
science of a Mendicant Monk. 

But what the Renaissance and Humanism did indirectly for 
theology^ must not be ignored. While it was not really 

^Yet, "German patriotism effected a union in many ways of the anti- Romish 
traditions with Humanistic Illuminism" (Loofs). 
^ Drews, Humanism us und Reformation, 1887. 



CHAP. II.] HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL SCIENCE. 173 

demolished by them, and still much less re-shaped, yet for the 
future re-shaping they certainly rendered most valuable services. 
The sources of history were gradually disclosed for it also, and 
the Humanist Erasmus not only laid the foundation of textual 
criticism of the New Testament and scientific patrology, but 
carried them at once to a high state of perfection. From a 
taste for the original, criticism grew up. What had died out in 
the Church with Origen, nay, in some measure even before 
Origen, or what — keeping out of view a few Antiochians — had 
never really developed themselves strongly, namely, historic 
sense and historic exegesis, developed themselves now. The 
Reformation was to reap the benefit of them ; but by the 
Reformation also they were soon to be swallowed up again. 
For the history of theology, and of dogmas, in the strictest 
sense of the term. Humanism was otherwise quite unfruitful. 
Theology was put aside by it with a respectful recognition, or 
with an air of cool superiority, or with saucy ridicule. Scarcely 
anyone approached it with serious criticism. Erasmus aimed at 
giving it a humanistic ennoblement and freeing it from restric- 
tions. When the Reformation dawned, he pronounced, among 
other things, the controversy about indulgences to be a monks* 
quarrel, or a delightful dilemma for causing stir among the 
parsons. When things then grew serious and a decision had to 
be made, it became apparent that the Franciscan ideal, in 
peculiar combination with antique reserve and humanistic 
worldliness, with silent hatred of dogma and Church, and 
external submission, had a stronger hold on many aspiring souls 
than a liking for the gospel.' The scholar, besides, would not 
let himself be disturbed by the din of the " Lutheran rogues.'* 
Theological doctrine was held to be something indifferent : 
" Quieta non movere " — (let things that are at rest not be 
stirred) — or, at least, only in the form of a learned passage of 
arms. The avenger was at the door ; the following 150 years 
showed the terrified scholars to a frightful extent that theology 
will not be mocked. 

iDilthey (Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos. 5 Bd., p. 381 ff.), in a way that seems to 
me substantially correct, but somewhat forced, has described Erasmus as the founder 
of theological Rationalism with accommodation to the Church. Erasmus was too 
many-sided, and too uncertain of principles, to found anything beyond methods. 



t74 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 



4. TIu Moulding of Dogma in Sdiolasticism. 

In the Scholasticism of the thirteenth century the Latin 
•Church attained what the Greek Church attained in the eighth 
•century — a uniform systematic exhibition of its faith. This 
•exhibition had as its presuppositions, firsty Holy Scripture and 
the articuH fidei, as these had been formulated at the Councils ; 
second^ Augustinianism ; thirds the ecclesiastical (papal) decisions 
and the whole development of ecclesiasticism from the ninth 
century ; fourth^ the Aristotelian philosophy. 

We have shown in the third and fourth chapters of Vol. V. how 
the old scheme of Christian doctrine had undergone a trenchant 
modification at the hands of Augustine, but how, in its ultimate 
basis — as regards the final aim of religion and theology — it 
did not lose its recognised validity, its form, rather, having only 
.become more complicated. While Augustine described the 
influences of grace that operate in the Sacraments as the 
influences oi love^ he allowed the old view of the Sacraments to 
remain, namely, that they prepare for, and help to secure, the 
enjoyment of God. But he at the same time gave the most 
powerful impetus to a dual development of piety and ecclesi- 
astical doctrine ; for the forces of love that operate in the 
Sacraments establish also the " kingdom of righteousness " on 
earth, produce in this way the life in love that corresponds with 
the " law of Christ," and qualify the individual for those good 
works which establish merit before God and create a claim for 
salvation. 

In this last turn of thought Augustine had subordinated (by 
means of the intermediate idea, ** nostra merita dei munera " 
[our merits gifts of God]), his new view of divine grace as a 
gratia gratis data (grace freely given) to the old, chiefly West- 
ern, view of religion, as a combination of law, performance, and 
reward, and in the period that followed this subordinating pro- 
cess always continued to be carried further. Grace (in the form 
of the Sacraments) and merit (law and performance) are the two 
^centres of tlie curve in the mediceval conception of Christianity, 
But this curve is entirely embedded in faith in the Church ; for 



CHAP. II.] MOULDING OF DOGMA IN SCHOLASTICISM. 1/5 

since to the Church (as was not doubted) the Sacraments, and 
the power of the keys dependent on them, were entrusted, the 
Church was not merely the authority for the whole combination, 
but was in a very real sense the continued working of Christ 
Himself, and the body of Christ, which is enhypostatically 
united to Him. In this sense mediaeval theology is science of 
the Church (Ecclesiastik), although it had not much to say about 
the Church. But on the other hand, at least till Nominalism 
triumphed, this theology never lost sight of the fundamental 
Augustinian aim : " Deum et animam scire cupio. Nihilne 
plus? Nihil omnino" (I desire to know God and the soul. 
Nothing more ? No, nothingr whatever), />., it never discarded 
the view that in all theology what is aimed at ultimately is 
exclusively the cognition of God and of the relation of the in- 
dividual soul to Him.^ It was the intermingling of theology as 
ecclesiasticism with theology as nourishment for the soul that 
produced within mediaeval theology its internal discords, and 
lent to it its charm. From this intermingling also there is to 
be explained the twofold end here set before the Christian 
religion, although to the theologians only one of the ends was 
consciously present : religion and theology must on the one 
hand lead the individual to salvation (visio dei or surrender of 
the will), but it must on the other hand build up on earth the 
kingdom of virtue and righteousness, which is the empirical 
Church, and bring all powers into subjection to this kingdom.^' 

1 In Nominalism this became otherwise. The exhibition of the ecclesiastical 
doctrine became more and more an end in itself, and was detached from the philosophy 
of religion. That on this account the originality and independence of the Christian 
religion as a historic phenomenon came to view again more plainly, is not to be 
denied. 

^In their de6nition of salvation or of the 6nis theologise, the Schoolmen exhibit a 
Mystic, i.e.^ an Augustinian, ue.^ an old Catholic tendency. The fruitio dei is held to 
be the final end, whether it is realised in the intellect or in quiescence of the will in 
God. For tliis individualistic mode of viewing salvation, which is indifferent to the mural 
destiny of man, the Church is either not taken into account at all, or is taken into 
account simply as a means, and as an auxiliary institution. Only in so far as man con- 
ceives of himself as a being that is earthly^ bound to time, and must train himself, are all 
his ideals, and the forces that render him aid, included for him in the Church (salva- 
tion in time is salvation in the Churcli), and he must reverence the Church, as it is, 
as the mother of faith, as the saving institution, nay, as the regnum Christi. But 
this regnum has in the world beyond a form totally different from its present form. 



176 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

Augustine utilised in quite a new way the articuli fidei ; for 
him they are no longer faith itself, but, re-shaping them in many 
ways, he builds up faith by means of them. Yet their authority 
was not thereby shaken, but in a certain way was still further 
increased, inasmuch as the external authority became greater in 
the degree in which the internal — that faith identified itself 
exclusively with them — became less. This was exactly how 
things continued to move on in the Middle Ages. It was 
solely the articles of faith of ecclesiastical antiquity that were, 
in the strict sense, dogmas. Only the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation succeeded in winning for itself equal dignity with 
the old dogmas,^ by the quid pro quo that it is implied in the 
doctrine of the incarnation. When in this way the doctrine of 
t ran substantiation took its place side by side with the old 
dogmas, everything really was gained ; for by this link of 
attachment the whole sacramental system might be drawn 
up to the higher level of absolute Christian doctrine. This, 
too, afterwards took place, although, prior to the Council 
of Trent, the distinction was never made in detail between 
what belongs to dogma and what is simply a portion of 
theology, and even after the Council of Trent the Church 
wisely avoided the distinction. It is thus explained how, about 
the year 1500, no one except the most decided papists could 
affirm how far the province of necessary faith in the Church 
really extended. 

The task of Scholasticism, so far as it was dogmatic theology, 
was a threefold one. Following Augustine, it had to shape the 

In this whole view Scholasticism nowhere passed beyond Augustine. The relation is 
not drawn between the aim to be realised in the earthly, and the aim to be realised 
in the heavenly Church. In the last resort Roman Catholicism was then, and is also 
to-day, no phenomenon with but one meaning, as the Greek Church is, and as Pro- 
testantism might be. At one time it points its members to a contemplation that 
moves in the line of knowledge, love, and asceticism^ a contemplation that is as 
neutral to the Church as to ever>' association among men, and to everything earthly ; 
at another time it directs men to recognise in the earthly Church their highest goods 
and their proper aim. These directions can only be followed alternately, not to- 
gether. In consequence of this, Roman Catholics maintain two notions of the 
Church, which are neutral towards each other, the invisible communion of the elect 
and the papal Church. 
^ See the Symbol of 12 15. 



CHAP. II.] MOULDING OF DOGMA IN SCHOLASTICISM. 177 

old articuH fidei so that they would adjust themselves to the 
elliptic line drawn round the sacrament and merit ; it had to 
revise the doctrine of the Sacraments, which had come to it 
from Augustine in an extremely imperfect form ; ^ and it had 
to gather from observation the principles of present-day Church 
practice, and to bring these into accord, on the one hand with 
the articuli fidei, raised to the level of theology, and with the 
doctrine of the Sacraments, and on the other hand with 
Augustinianism. This task became more complicated from the 
fact that the Schoolmen — at least the earlier — uniformly com- 
bined dogmatics with philosophy of religion, and thus intro- 
duced into the former all the questions of metaphysics, as 
rising out of the general state of knowledge at the time. But 
this great task was really faithfully carried out by medicBval 
theology. That theology fulfilled the claims that were made 
upon it ; indeed, there has probably never been a period in 
history when, after hard labour, theology stood so securely in 
command of the situation, ie.^ of its age, as then. At the same 
time it knew how to maintain for itself until the fifteenth 
century the impression of a certain roundedness and unity, and 
yet left room, as the contrast between the Franciscan and 
Dominican dogmatists shows, for different modes of develop- 
ment. Yet on the other hand it must not be denied that the 
opinion here expressed by no means applies when we deal with 
the relation between piety and theology. In the case of 
Thomas, it is true, the claims of the latter and former still 
coincide, although not so perfectly as in the Greek Church at 
the time of the Cappadocians and of Cyril. But from the close 
of the thirteenth century piety and theology manifestly held an 
increasingly strained relation to each other. The former 
recognised itself always less clearly in the latter. They were 
one, it is true, in their ultimate ground (finis religionis, authority 
of the Church) ; even the most devoted piety was not really able 
to free itself from these bonds. But starting from the common 
basis, theology unfolded a tendency to treat the holy as some- 
thing authoritative, external and made easy by the Church, and 
this tendency piety viewed with growing suspicion and annoy- 

^ In this lies the greatest importance of Scholasticism within the history of dogma. 

M 



178 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

ance. In the doctrines of the Sacraments and of grace, as 
Scholasticism gave fuller shape to them — developing germs which 
were not wanting even in Thomas — the strain between theology 
and piety reached clearest expression. The Augustinian 
reactions from the middle of the fourteenth century, at one time 
noisy in their course, at another time moving on silently and 
steadily, were the result of this strain. The official theology of 
the fifteenth century must be recognised only in a relative way as 
the expression of the true Catholic piety of the period. This 
applies even to Tridentine Catholicism, and holds true to the 
present day. The doctrine, as it is, is not the sphere in which 
vital Catholic faith lives. But because its foundations are also 
the foundations of this faith, the faith lets itself in the end be 
satisfied with this doctrine. 

As we have not to do with the philosophy of religion, we 
must confine ourselves in what follows to describing the 
scholastic revision of the old articuli fidei, the scholastic doctrine 
of the Sacraments, and the scholastic discussion of Augus- 
tinianism as related to the new Church principles, which led 
finally to an entire dissolution of the Pauline Augustinian 
doctrine. With regard to the first of these points the statement 
can be quite brief, seeing that in the revision of the old articuli 
fidei theological doctrines were dealt with which, as scientifically 
unfolded, never acquired a universal dogmatic importance, 
and seeing that this revision leads over at many points into the 
philosophy of religion. 

A. T/te Revision of tfie Traditional Articuli Fidei, 

I. The article " de deo " (on God) was the fundamental and 
cardinal article.' In the strictly realistic Scholasticism the 
Areopagitic Augustinian conception of God was held as valid : 
God as the absolute substance. Where this conception was 
adhered to, its absolute necessity for thought was also asserted 
(Anselm's ontological proof,*) and a high value was ascribed to 

1 See the excellent selection of passages from the sources in Miinscher-Coelln II. , 
I, § ii8, 119. Schwane, I.e., p. 122 ff. 
^ Anselm's discussions of the conception of God, in which there is the first step of 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 1/9 

the proofs for God. Through the acquaintance with Aristotle, 
however, the Areopagite conception of God was restricted, 
which had developed itself in Scotus Erigena, Amalrich of Bena 
and David of Dinanto, as well as among the adherents of the 
Averrhoistic Aristotelianism, into pantheism. The cosmological 
proofs, to which preference was more and more given,^ led also 
to a stricter distinguishing between God and the creature, and 
Thomas himself, although the Areopagite Augustinian con- 
ception of God is still for him fundamental, stoutly combated 
pantheism.* Following Anselm, Thomas also linked the con- 
ception of God as the absolute substance with that of self- 
conscious thought, adopted, still further, from Aristotle the 
definition of God as actus purus, and thus gave the conception 
a more living and personal shape. But he had at the. same 
time the very deepest interest in emphasising absolute suffi- 
ciency and necessity in God ; for only the necessary can be 
known with certainty; but it is on certain knowledge that 
salvation, />., the visio dei, depends. Thomas accordingly now 
conceived of God, not only as necessary being, but also as an 
end for Himself, so that the world, which He creates in goodness, 
is entirely subordinated to His own purpose, a purpose which 
could realise itself indeed even without the world.* Yet Duns 
already combated (against Richard of St Victor, see also 
Anselm, Monolog.,) the notion of a necessary existence due to itself^ 
and thereby really abandoned all proofs of God : * the infinite 
is not cognisable by demonstration, and hence can only be 

advance beyond the Areopagite conception, are not taken note of at all by the 
Lombard, who adhered simply to the patristic tradition. Thomas is the first to 
adopt Anselm's speculations. 

1 See Thomas, P. I., Q. 2, Art. 3, where the cosmological argument appears in a 
threefold form. 

' Ritschl, Gesch. Studien z. christl. L. v. Gott, Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1865, 
p. 277 ff., Joh. Delitzsch, Die Gotteslehre des Thomas, 1870. Ritschl has shown 
(see also Rechtfert. u. Versrihnungslehre, Bd. I., 2 Aufl., p. 58 ff.,) that the Aristotelian 
conception had already a strong influence on Thomas. 

• Summa, P. I., Q. 19, Art. I, 2. 

« In Sentent. Lomb., I. Dist. 2, Q. 2, Art. I. On Duns' doctrine of knowledge 
and of science, see Werner, Duns Scotus, p. 180 ff.; ibid., p. 331 ft., on his doctrine 
oi God, which only admits of an a posteriori ascertainment of the qualities of the 
/I i vine Bein«T. 



l80 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

believed in on authority. Occam made as energetic an attack 
on the " primum movens immobile " (prime immovable mover) 
and likewise fell back on authority. But with the impossibility 
of demonstrating the infinite, and of giving life by speculation 
to the notion of the " necessarium ex se ipso," there disappeared 
also for Nominalism the conception of the necessity of the inner 
determinedness of the infinite Being, of whom authority taught 
God is not summum esse (supreme being) and sum ma intelli- 
gentia (supreme intelligence) in the sense in which intelligence 
belongs to the creature, but He is, as measured by the under- 
standing of the creature, the unlimited almighty will, the cause 
of the world, a cause, however, which could operate quite other- 
wise from the way in which it does. God is thus the abso- 
lutely free will, who simply wills because He wills to, i,e,y a 
cognisable ground of the will does not exist. From this point 
of view the doctrine of God becomes as uncertain as, above all, 
the doctrine of grace. Occam went so far as to declare 
monotheism to be only more probable than polytheism ; for 
what can be strictly proved is either only the notion of a single 
supreme Being, but not His existence, or the existence of 
relatively supreme beings, but not the one-ness. Accordingly 
the attributes of God were quite differently treated in the 
Thomist and in the Scotist schools. In the former they were 
strictly derived from a necessary principle, but only to be 
cancelled again in the end, as identical in the one substance, 
in the latter they were relatively determined ; in the former— 
in accordance with the thesis of the summum esse — a virtual 
existence of God in the world was assumed, and in the last 
analysis there was no distinguishing between the existence of 
God for Himself and His existence for the world, in the latter — 
as the world is a free product of God's will, entirely disjoined 
from God — only an ideal presence of God is taught. As can 
easily be seen, the contrast is ultimately determined by different 
ideas of the position of man and of religion. For the Thomists, 
the idea is that of dependence on God Himself^ who compre- 
hends and sustains all things, for the Scotists the idea is that of 
independence in relation to God. It certainly meant an 
important advance upon Thomas when God was strictly con- 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEI. l8l 

ceived of by Duns as will and person, and was distinguished 
from the world ; but this advance becomes at once a serious 
disadvantage when we can no longer depend upon this God, 
because we are not permitted to think of Him as acting according 
to the highest categories of moral necessity,^ and when, accord- 
ingly* the rule holds, that the goodness of the creature consists 
in surrender to the will of God, of which the motives are in- 
scrutable, while its content is clearly given in revelation (so 
Duns).2 The view that contemplates God as also arbitrariness, 
because He is will, becomes ultimately involved in the same 
difficulties as the view that contemplates Him as the all- 
determining substance, for in both cases His essence is shrouded 
in darkness. But the narrow way that leads to a sure and 
comforting knowledge of God, the way of faith in God as the 
Father of Jesus Christ, the Schoolmen would not follow. 
Therefore their whole doctrine of God, whether it be of a 
Thomist or of a Scotist cast, cannot be used in dogmatic. For 
on this point dogmatic must keep to its own field of knowledge, 
namely, the historic Christ, and must not fear the reproach of 
" blind faith " (" Kohlerglaubens," collier's faith,) if it is blind 
faith that God can be felt and known only from personal life — 
and, in a way that awakens conviction, only from the personal 
life of Christ This does not exclude the truth that Thomistic 
Mysticism can warmly stir the fancy, and gently delude the 
understanding as to the baselessness of speculation. How far, 
as regards the conception of God, mediaeval thought in 
Nominalism had drifted from the thought which had once given 
theological fixity in the Church to the articulus de deo, can best 
be seen when we compare the doctrine of God of Origen, 

' Werner, I.e., p. 408 : ** It is a genuinely Scotist thought that the absolute divine 
will cannot be subjected to the standard of our ethical habits of thought (!) " 

3 In contrast with this, Thomas had taught (P. I., Q. 12, Art. 12) that indeed *' ex 
sensibilium cognitione non potest tota dei virtus cognosci et per consequens nee ejus 
essentia videri," but that both the existence of God and " ea qua ntcesse est ex 
amvenire'*^ can be known. Duns and his disciples denied this ; but, on the other 
hand, they asserted that God is more cognisable than the Thomists were willing to 
grant. The latter denied an adequate (essential) knowledge of God (cognitio 
quidditativa) ; the Scotists affirmed it, because it was not a question at all about the 
knowledge of an infinite intelligence, but about the knowledge of the God who is 
will, and who has manifested His will. 



1 82 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CIIAP. II. 

Gregory of Nyssa, or John of Damascus with that of Duns or 
Occam.^ But the whole of dogmatic is dependent on the 
conception of God ; for that conception determines both the 
view of salvation and the view of reconciliation.* Finally, it 
must be pointed out, that mediaeval theology strongly empha- 
sises the conception of God as judge, though this conception 
was not introduced by it into speculations as to the nature of 
God. 

2. Stormy debates on the right way of understanding, and 
the right way of mentally representing the doctrine of the 
Trinity,* had already run their course, when the Mendicant 
Orders made their appearance in science. The bold attempts 
to make the mystery more intelligible, whether by approxi- 
mating to tritheism (Roscellin),* or by passing over to Modalism 
(Abelard), were rejected in the period of Anselm and Bernard 
(against Gilbert).^ Where Augustine's treatise De trinitate 
was studied and followed, a fine Modalism introduced itself 
everywhere,® and it was easy for any one who wished to convict 
another of heresy to bring the reproach of Sabellianism against 
his opponent who was influenced by Augustine. Even the 
Lombard was charged with giving too much independence to 
the divina essentia, and with thus teaching a quatemity, or a 
species of Sabellianism.^ The lesson derived in the thirteenth 

^ On this, and the acute criticism of the Aristotelian doctrine of God, see Werner, 
Nachscotistiche Scholastik, p. 216 ff. 

2 It is a special merit of Ritschl that in his great work in the department of the 
history of dogma he has shown everywhere the fundamental importance of the 
conception of God. 

3 See Munscher, § 120, Schwane, I.e. p. 152 ff.. Bach, Dogmengesch. Bd. IL, 
Baur, L. v. d. Dreieinigkeit, Bd. II. 

^ Application of the Nominalist mode of thought ; against him Anselm ; see 
Renter I., p. 134 f. ; Deutsch, Abelard, p. 256 f. 

^ There was a disposition to detect even tritheism in Abelard ; on his doctrine of 
the Trinity, see Deutsch^ p. 259 ff. Abelard's wish was to reject both the Roscellin 
conception and strict Sabellianism, yet he does not get beyond a fine Modalism (see 
Deutsch, p. 280 ff.). It is noteworthy that, like Luther at Worms, he stated in the 
prologue to his Introductio in theol., that he was ready to be corrected, **■ cum qais 
me fidelium vel virtute ration is vel auctoritate sciiptune correxerit *' (see Mtlnscher, 
p. 52). 

' Thus it was with Anselm and the Victorinians, especially Richard, who reproduced and 
expounded the Augustinian analogies of the Trinity (the powers of the human spirit). 

7 Joachim of Fiore made it a reproach that the 4th Lateran Council, c. 2, took 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEI. 183 

century from these experiences was to guard the trinitarian 
dogma by a still greater mustering of terminological distinc- 
ions than Augustine had recourse to. The exposition of the 
doctrine of the Trinity continued to be the high school of logic 
and dialectic. In Thomism the doctrine still had a relation to 
the idea of the world, in so far as the hypostasis of the Son was 
not sharply marked off from the world-idea in God. Thomism 
was also necessarily obliged to retain its leaning to Modalism, 
as the conception of God did not at bottom admit of the 
assumption of distinctions in God, but reduced the distinctions 
to relations, which themselves again had to be neutralised. 
The Scotist School, on the other hand, kept the persons sharply 
asunder. But this school, especially in its later period, could 
equally well have defended, or yielded submission to, the 
quaternity, or any other doctrine of God whatever. But before 
this the whole doctrine had already come to be a mere problem 
of the schools, having no relation to living faith. The respect 
that was paid to it as the fundamental dogma of the Church 
was in flagrant contrast with the incapacity to raise it in 
theological discussion above the level of a logical mystery. 
Like Augustine in his day, the mediaeval theologians let it be 
seen that they would not have set up this dogma if it had not 
come to them by tradition, and the decree of the Lateran 
Council (see page 182, note 7,) which places behind the persons a 
" res non generans neque genita nee procedens ** {a thing not 
begetting nor begotten nor proceeding) really transforms the 
persons into mere modalities KaT eirivoiav (existing for thought), 
or into jnner processes in God. Or is it still a doctrine of the 
Trinity, when the immanent thinking and the immanent willing 

the Lombard under its protection and decreed: "Nos {i.e., the Pope) sacro et 
universali concilio approbante credimus et confitemur cum Petro (scil. Lombardo), 
quod una quffidam summa res est, incomprehensibilis quidem et inefiabilis, qusB 
veraciter est pater et filius et spiritus, tres simul persons, ac singulatim quselibet 
earundem. Et ideo in deo trinitas est solummodo, non qaatemitas, quia quaelibet 
trium personarum est ilia res, videlicet substantia, essentia sive natura divina, quae 
sola est universorum principium, praeter quod aliud inveniri non potest. Et ilia res 
non est generans neque genita nee procedens, sed est pater qui generat, filius qui 
gignitur, et spiritus sanctus qui procedit, ut distinctiones sint in personis et unitas in 
natura." 



1 84 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

in God are defined and objectified as generate and spirare 
(begetting and breathing)? But in Nominalism the treatment 
of this dogma grew no better. The Thomist School was cer- 
tainly still regulated by a concrete thought, when it sought to 
make the Trinity more intelligible by means of analogies ; for 
according to these the finite world, and especially the rational 
creature, show traces of the divine nature and the divine 
attributes. But this idea Scotism had set aside, emphasising 
the threefold personality as revealed fact Its " subtle investi- 
gations," even Schwane confesses,^ " went astray too much into 
a region of formalism, and came to be a playing with notions." 
3. The doctrine of the eternity of the world * was universally 
combated, and the creation from nothing adhered to as an 
article of faith. But only the Post-Thomist Schoolmen ex- 
pressed the temporality of the world, and creation out of nothing, 
in strict formulae. Although Thomas rejected the pantheism 
of the Neoplatonic-Erigenistic mode of thought, there are still 
to be found in him traces of the idea that creation is the 
actualising of the divine ideas, that is, their passing into the 
creaturely form of subsistence. Further, he holds, on the basis 
of the Areopagite conception of God, that all that is has its 
existence " by participating in him who alone exists through 
himself" (participatione ejus, qui solum per se ipsum est). But 
both thoughts obscure the conception of creation.* Hence it is 
characteristic of Thomas, who elsewhere, as a rule, finds strict 
necessity, that he refrains from showing that the world's having 
a beginning is a doctrine necessary for thought ; Summa., P. I., 
Q. 46, Art. 2 : "It is to be asserted that the world's not having 
always existed is held by faith alone, and cannot be proved 
demonstratively : as was asserted also above regarding the 
mystery of the Trinity . . . that the world had a beginning is 

A L.C., p. 179. 

2 See Miinscher, § 121, 122, Schwane, pp. 179-226. 

3 For a pantheistic view of creation in Thomas an appeal, however, can scarcely 
be made to the expression frequently employed by him, "emanatio" (processio) 
creaturanim a deo ; for he certainly does not employ the expression in a pantheistic 
sense. If he says, P. I., Q. 45, Art. i : ** emanationem totius entis a causa universal! 
quae est deus, designamus nomine creationis," just for that reason he shows in what 
follows, that ** creatio, quae est emanatio totius esse^ est ex non enie^ quod est nihUJ" 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 1 85 

credible, but not demonstrable or knowable. And it is useful 
to consider this, in case perhaps some one, presuming to demon- 
strate what is of faith, should adduce reasons that are not 
necessary, thus giving occasion for ridicule to infidels, who 
might think that on the ground of such reasons we believe what 
is of faith." If only Thomas had always taken to heart these 
splendid words, which, moreover, were directed against Bona- 
ventura and Albertus Magnus, who undertook to prove the begin- 
ning of the world in time a doctrine of reason ! Duns Scotus 
and his school naturally followed Thomas here, in so far as they 
held the temporality of the world as guaranteed simply by the 
authority of faith.^ Yet the view of Albertus certainly survived 
at the same time in the Church. The purpose of the creation of 
the world was taken by all the Schoolmen to be the exhibition 
of the love (bonitas) of God, which seeks to communicate itself 
to other beings. Even Thomas, correcting the Areopagite con- 
ception of God, declared the creation of the world no longer a 
necessary, but only a contingent, means, whereby God fulfils 
His personal end. Yet he certainly represented the personal 
end of God, which is freely realised in creation, as the supreme 
thought : "divina bonitas est finis rerum omnium "* (the divine 
love is the end of all things), i.e., God's willing His own blessed- 
ness embraces all movements whatever of that which exists, His 
willing it by means of creation of the world is His free will ; but 
as He has so willed to create, the end of the creature is entirely 
included in the divine end ; the creature has no end of its own, but 
realises the divine end, which is itself nothing but the actualising of 
the love (bonitas). In this way the pantheistic acosmism is cer- 
tainly not quite banished, while on the other hand, in the thesis^ of 
Thomas, that God necessarily conceived from eternity the idea 
of the world, because this idea coincides with His knowledge 
and so also with His being, the pancosmistic conception of God 
is not definitely excluded. In the Scotist school, the personal 

1 Scotus holds the possibility of a divine creation from eternity as not unthinkable, 
but disputes the arguments by which Thomas sought to corroborate the position that 
a beginning of creation in time cannot be proved ; see Werner, Duns Scotus, 
p. 380 fF. 

^ P. I., Q. 44, Art. 4 ; see also Q. 14, 19, 46, 104. 



1 86 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

end of God and the end of the creature are sharply disconnected.^ 
As regards divine providence, from the time of Anselm and 
Abelard onwards, all the questions were again treated which were 
formerly dealt with by Origen ; but from the time of Thomas 
they were added to in an extraordinary degree, so that quite new 
terminology was here created.* To the question whether this 
world is the best, Thomas gave a negative answer, after Anselm 
had answered it in the affirmative ; yet even Thomas thinks this 
universe cannot be better ; God, however, could have created 
other things, which would have been still better.^ As a conse- 
quence of his fundamental view, Thomas assumes that God 
directs all things immediately ; yet the greater the independence 
was that was attributed to the 'world, the stronger became the 
opposition to this thesis. In the theodicy, moreover, which was 

1 Here would be the place to deal with the doctrine of angels held by the School- 
men ; but as the material relating to this subject — the fencing and wrestling ground 
of the theologians, who had here more freedom than elsewhere — is very loosely con- 
nected with dogma, and is at the same time unworthy of serious consideration, it may 
be passed over; see Thomas, P. I., Q. 50-65 ; Schwane, pp. 194-217. 

' See Summa, P. I., Q. 103- 117 : de gubernatione rerum, divided according to the 
points of view of finis gubernationis, conservatio and mutatio rerum. Under the 
first point of view it is established speculatively that the finis rerum must be " quod- 
dam bonum extrinsecum," because the finis universalis rerum as the ultimate goal 
must be the '* bonum universale," but this latter cannot be included in the world, 
since the world, in virtue of its created quality, can never include more than a 
participative bonum ; hence God Himself is the finis gubemationis (see above). 
Further, in the general doctrine of government the questions are treated, whether 
there is a gubernatio at all, whether it proceeds from ofUf whether its effect is uniform 
or manifold, whether everything h under it, whether it is everywhere direct^ whether 
anything can happen pneter ordinem gubemationis, and whether anything '* reniti 
possit contra ordinem gubemationis dei.*' The "conservatio'* is defined (q. 104, 
art. I ) as only a continued creating, and so it is said at the close of the article (ad. 4) : 
" conservatio remm a deo non est per aliquam novam actionem, sed per continua- 
tionem actionis quae dat esse, quae quidem actio est sine motu et tempore, sicut etiam 
conservatio luminis in aere est per continuatum influxum a sole." This not unobjec- 
tionable definition is applied in many different ways. Thus miracle is declared 
impossible, in so far as the ordo rerum depends on a prima causa, while on the other 
hand it is admitted in view of the causae secundaB (art. 6). But according to Thomas 
the real miracles, although they are not so designated, are the creation of the world 
and of souls, and also the justificatio impiorum ; for they are praeter ordinem 
naturalem. The miracle of all miracles is God, quod habet causam simpliciter et 
omnibus occultam. 

3 P. I., Q. 25, Art. 6. 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 18/ 

vigorously revised in the thirteenth century in opposition to the 
dualistic sects, Thomas attached himself more closely to 
Augustine. He did not shrink from the thought that God pro- 
duces " quasi per accidens " (as it were accidentally) the corrup- 
tiones rerum (corruption in things); for the "perfection of 
things in the universe requires that there shall be not only 
incorruptible, but also corruptible entities" ("perfectio rerum 
universitatis requirit, ut non solum sint entia incorruptibilia, sed 
etiam corruptibilia ") ; but from this it follows that the perfectio 
universi requires beings that can fall from the good, " ex quo- 
sequitur ea interdum deficere " (from which it follows that they 
are sometimes defective).^ In these doctrines, too, greater 
caution came to be exercised, as the distinction came to be more 
sharply drawn between God, and the creature as endowed with 
its own volitional movement* 

4. The history of Christology was similar to that of the 
doctrine of the Trinity. In the twelfth century there was still 
much keen discussion with regard to the former, as the satisfac- 
tion was not general with the Greek scheme that had been 
framed in opposition to Adoptianism (Abelard's Nestorian 
Christology was a protest against the doctrine of John of 
Damascus and of Alcuin, and continued to extend its influence).^ 
Even the Lombard, although, with Alcuin, he denies that the 
Logos assumed a human /^r^^«,* still gravitated^-certainly in a 
very peculiar way — to a Nestorian thought, in so far as he 
denied, in the interest of the immutability of God, that by the 
incarnation God "became" something, the humanity rather 
being for him only like a garment.^ But against this doctrine^ 

1 P. I., Q. 48, Art. 2. 

^ Very worthy of notice is Duns' criticism of Augustine's and Anselm's doctrines of 
malum ; see Werner, I.e., p. 402 ff. 

' See Deutsch, I.e., pp. 2S9-318. Abelard's doctrine is a very vigorous attempt 
to give full justice to the humanity of Christ within the lines of the traditional dogma. 
But there was the feeling that this attempt was heretical, and it is, in fact, question- 
able, if we consider that it threatens the unity of the person of Christ, on which 
all depends, but which, of course, at that time could only be expressed in the 
impracticable categories of the natures. 

«Sentent. III., dist. 5 C. 

Sentent. III., dist. 6. Yet it was only the disciples that utilised the thought 
thrown out by the Master. Besides, the doctrine asserts nothing else than what 



1 88 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

described as Nihilianism, and adopted by the dialecticians 
(Christ was, as man, non aliquid [not something]), a strong ofH 
position was raised in the period of Alexander III., especially 
by German scholars (Gerhoch) ; there was asserted, in opposition 
to it, the most complete and real interpenetration of deity and 
humanity in Christ (see Alcuin), and the Lombard's doctrine 
was even publicly described as dangerous.^ With this " nota " 
against " Nihilianism," the doctrine of the two natures came to 
the great Schoolmen, and the problem of the "hypostatic union" 
now became as much the field of contest for the acutest thought 
as the problem of the Trinity.* At the same time the view 
all took of the communicatio idiomatum implied that the 
thought must be excluded of a human person as existing for 
himself in Christ. But here, also, there resulted important 
differences between the Thomists and Scotists ; for Thomas 
made the greatest effort to give such predominance to the divine 
factor that the human became merely something passive and 
accidental ; as he was influenced by the Areopagite, he continued 
also, in a very real way, the Greek Monophysite Christology ; 
nor was there wanting to him the Areopagite background, that 
the Logos entered into just the same relation to human nature 
as a whole, into which he entered with the human nature of 
Jesus. Against this Scotus made an effort, in a very modest 
way, and with a profusion of confusingly complicated ter- 
minology, to save something more of the humanity of Christ. 
But in return for this, he has to hear the verdict of modern 
Catholic theologians of dogma, that "he won for himself no 
laurels ; that what he did, rather, in this field, with his critical 
censures (of the Angelic Doctor) was mostly a fiasco."* His 
effort to attribute existence even to the human individual nature 

Cyril had expressed regarding the incarnation of the Logos with the fi^fUrriKew 

^ See Bach, l.c., Bd. II., Hefele, Conciliengesch. V.', p. 6i6 ff. (Synod of Tours, 
1 163), and p. 719 fi (3rd Lateran Synod, 1 179). 

* See Schwane, pp. 251-296. 

s Schwane, p. 288; compare the full account in Werner, I.e., p. 427 ff. Duns 
taught a double filiation, and in the Report. Paris, expressly professed belief also in 
the probability of Adoptianism ; see p. 439 f. On the similar Christology of Post- 
Scotist Scholasticism, see Werner II., p. 330 f. 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 1 89 

of Christ was disapproved. His mild attempts, likewise, were 
repudiated to fix certain limits to the human knowledge of 
Christ, and to deduce the sinlessness of the human will of Jesus, 
not from the hypostatic union, but from the " plenissima fruitio 
quam habuit Christus " (fullest enjoyment that Christ had), !>.,. 
from his perfect surrender of will.^ On this field Thomism con- 
tinued victorious. The Scotists did not succeed in securing the 
recognition of a special mode of being for the individual human 
nature of Christ.* 

The victory of the Monophysite doctrine of Christ concealed 
under the Chalcedonian formulae,^ was all the more surprising 
from no practical religious use whatever being made of it, the 
real interest in Christ finding expression rather, on the one hand, 
in the idea of the poor life of Jesus and the Ecce homo, on the 

1 See Werner, p. 440 ff. 

2 The doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not receive a further development in 
Scholasticism. From the days, certainly, of the Latin Empire in the East till the 
Synod of Florence there was controversy and negotiation with the Greeks in number- 
less treatises about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The negotiations for union 
lasted, with interruptions, for almost 250 years, and for a time they furnished a 
certain prospect of success, because from the thirteenth century there was a small 
Latin party in the East, which, however, in the end was disowned by the whole 
Eastern Church. At Lyons in 1274 (can. i) Greeks made admission that the 
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ("non tamquam ex duobus 
principiis, sed tamquam ex uno principio, unica spiratione "), and at Florence 
(Mansi XXXI., p. 1027 sq.) there was a coming to terms in a complicated formula, 
which, however, expressly justified the ** filioque.'* But as early as 1443 ^^^ Floren- 
tine Council was condemned at a Jerusalem Synod by the Patriarchs of Antioch, 
Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The Greeks with Latin sympathies either confessed 
penitently their ** 1>etrayal of the faith," or preferred to remain in Italy and become 
Roman dignitaries. 

8 This victory, it is true, came about not in Scholasticism but in the Church. 
Scholasticism was led on rather by Occam to a complete dissolution of the God- 
Manhood of Christ, so that for Socinianism there remained nothing more to do (see 
Werner II., p. 353 ff.). In Certilog., concl. 6, Occam writes : ** Est articulus fidei, 
quod deus assumpsit naturam humanam. Non includit contradictionem deum 
assumere naturam asininam ; pari ratione potest assumere lapidem vel lignum." 
Also (l.c. concl. 62) : ** To Christ the predicate Son of God can only be attributed 
in so far as in Him the Verbum divinum appears united with the human ftature ; of 
a filiation relation of the Verbum divinum in itself the reason of man knows nothing "; 
so also the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason (I., Dist. 9, Q. i). If as 
over against this there is a pointing to fides, it is simply submission to authority 
that is meant. If, now, from any cause, this authority fell away, Socinianism was 
ripe* 



igO HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

Other hand, in the doctrines of reconciliation and of the Sacra- 
ments.^ But it is only apparently that the doctrine of reconcilia- 
tion has the Greek Christology, together with the doctrine of 
the two natures, as its presupposition. This has been shown 
already above in connection with the reconciliation doctrine of 
Anselm, Abelard, and the Lombard.* It still remains to us here 
to specify concisely the thoughts of the later Schoolmen on the 
work of Christ.^ 

The Lombard had brought the merit of Christ into the fore- 
ground, and at the same time had given expression to all possible 
thoughts about redemption by Christ — the Anselmic theory 
excepted — and had attached himself closely to Augustine and 
Abelard ("reconciliati sumus deo diligenti nos^* [we are reconciled 
to God, who loves us\). The modification in the thirteenth 
•century consisted now in this, that, in opposition to Abelard, and 
with a certain adherence to Anselm, objective redemption 
(in its bearing upon God) was brought into the foreground, but 
at the same time, the point of view of merit, which Anselm had 
only suggested, was strongly emphasised. This turn of things 
appears already in Alexander of Hales and Albertus ; but 
Thomas was the first to furnish a full, strictly-thought-out 
doctrine of redemption. Certainly even he alternates between 
the points of view, which is always a sign that tlu point of view 
is not firmly got hold of; for, where the sufficient reason is 
wanting, reasons tend to accumulate. But the sufficient reason 
was really wanting to Thomas ; for P. III., Q. 46, Art. 1-3, the 

1 There was repeated here what we have already observed in connection with the 
doctrine of the Trinity. In regard to both dogmas theoretical speculation strikes out 
paths which are scarcely any longer united with the paths along which faith moves. 
There can scarcely be conceived of a greater contrariety than is implied, when in the 
doctrine of the person of Christ the "homo" is almost entirely eliminated, and then 
in the doctrine of the work of Christ this ** homo " takes the commanding place. 
No doubt by means of words and terminologies all chasms can be bridged over ; but 
they are still only words. 

« See p. 54 ff. 

» See Ritschl, Vol. I., p. 55 ff.; Miinscher, § 135 ; Schwane, pp. 296-333. The 
passio Christ i dominates the whole Western theology. If John of Damascus (sec 
Vol. III., p. 288) calls the incarnation the only new thing under the sun, Waller v.d. 
Vogelweide expresses the general conviction of the West, when in one of his best- 
known poems he exalts the suffering of Christ as the miracle of all miracles. 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL I9I 

necessity of the death of Christ is explicitly rejected — God could 
also have simply remitted sin in the exercise of His free will, — 
the chosen way of deliverance by the death of Christ (liberatio 
per mortem Christi) is only the most fitting, because, by it, more 
and greater things are imparted to us than if we were redeemed 
solely by the will of God (sola voluntate dei). 

There were three points of view especially which Thomas 
applied. First, he stated (Q. 46) a large number of arguments 
that were intended to prove that the death of Christ, with all 
the circumstances of His suffering, was the most fitting means 
of redemption. Within the lines of this idea many points of 
view are already suggested that deal with the facts. But above 
all the infinite pain which He endured is taken into account 
His suffering (during His whole life and in death) is represented 
as being the sum of all conceivable suffering, in the sense too 
of its being His own pain and the pain of sympathy on account 
of our sin. Here justice is done to the Abelardian-Augus- 
tinian tradition, viz., that the suffering of Christ, the Mediatorial 
Matty is redemptive, inasmuch as it brings God's love home to our 
hearts, becomes an example to us, recalls us from sin, and stirs as a 
motive responsive love. But on the other hand, the convenientius 
(more fitting) in an objective sense is also already brought out 
here, inasmuch as the death of Christ was the most fitting 
means for winning for men the gratia justificans (justifying 
grace) and the gloria beatitudinis (glory of beatitude).^ 

1 Q. 46, Art. 3 : "Tanto aliqois modus convenientior est ad assequendum finem, 
quanto per ipsum plura concurrunt, quae sunt expedientia fini. Per hoc autem quod 
homo per Christi passionem liberatus, multa concurrerunt ad salutem hominis 
pertinentia prater liberationem a peccato : Primo enim per hoc homo cognosdt, 
quantum hominem deus diligat, et per hoc provocatur ad eum diligendum, in quo 
perfectio humanse salutis consistit. Unde Apostolus dicit : ' Commendat suam 
caritatem deus,' etc. Secundo quia per hoc nobis dedit exemplum obedientise et 
humilitatis et constantiae, justitiae et ceterarum virtutum in passione Christi osten> 
sarum, quae sunt necessaria ad humanam salutem. Unde dicitur, I., Pet. 2: 
* Christus passus pro nobis, nobis relinquens exemplum, etc' Tertio quia Christus 
per passionem suam non solum hominem a peccato liberavit, sed etiam gratiam 
justificaniem et gloriam beatitudinis ei promeruit^ ut infra dicetur (Q. 48). Quarto, 
quia per hoc est homini inducta major necessitas, se immunem a peccato conservandi, 
qui se sanguine Christi redemptum cogitat a peccato, secundum illud I., Cor. 6: 
' Empti estis pretio,' etc. Quinto quia hoc ad majorem dignitatem hominb cessit, ut 
sicut homo victus fuerat et deceptus a diabolo, ita etiam homo esset qui diabolum 



192 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

In Q. 408, new points of view are now introduced under 
the heading " de modo passionis Christi quantum ad effectum " 
(on the mode of Christ's suffering as regards its effect). The 
hypothetical character here passes into the rear behind the neces- 
sary result of the sufTering. But the whole inquiry is dominated 
by the fundamental thought : " Christus non est passus secun- 
dum divinitatem, sed secundum carnem," (Christ did not suffer 
as to His divinity, but as to His flesh), with which the divinity 
associated itself. Here the death of Christ is placed under the 
points of view of merit (Art. i), satisfaction (Art 2), sacrifice 
?Art. 3), redemption (Arts. 4 and 5), and " efficientia " (Art 6). 
This is succeeded, in Quest 49, by an inquiry as to how far the 
death of Christ has freed us from sin (Art. i), from the power of 
the devil (Art. 2), and from liability to penalty (a reatu poenae) 
(Art. 3), and again, as to whether by it we are reconciled to God 
(Art 4), whether by it entrance to heaven is secured for us 
(Art 5), and whether by it Christ was exalted (Art 6). Among 
these points of view there stand out prominently (secondly) 
that of satisfaction and (thirdly) that of merit as specially 
important. 

The conception of satisfaction is obtained by taking (against 
Anselm) in the strictest sense the voluntariness of Christ's suf- 
ferings, and then defining this voluntary suffering according to 
the particular rule, that satisfaction always consists in a gift for 
which the party injured has more love than he has hatred for 
the injury. This is shown in the suffering of Christ, which is 
described (see above) as not only suffering in death but suffer- 
ing in life,^ and which has its value in the divine-human life of 
the Mediator. Just on that account the satisfactio is not only 
sufficient but superabundans ; ^ i,e,, it is not only aiqualis omni- 

vinceret, et sicut homo mortem meruit, ita homo moriendo mortem superaret. Et 
ideo convenientius fuit quod per passionem Christi liberaremur, quam per solam dei 
voluntatem." In Q. 47 the treatment of redemption from the point of view of the 
convenientissimum is continued. 

1 It is a step in advance on the part of Thomas that he does not confine himself to 
the death of Christ, but embraces in his view His whole life as suffering. 

2 Q. 48, Art 2 : ** Respondeo dicendum, quod ille proprio satisfadt pro offensa, 
qui exhibet offenso id quod seque vel magis diligit, quam oderit offensam. Christus 
autem ex caritate et obediencia paticndo niajus aliquid deo exhibuit, quam exigeret 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 193 

bus peccatis humani generis (equal to all the sins of the human 
race), but positively in excess of them. In this way an idea is 
obtained which, though apparently unobjectionable and worthy, 
was to give occasion to the most unhappy speculations. A 
vicarious penal suffering, in the strict sense of the terms, is not 
recognised even by Thomas, because on the whole question he 
allowed only a limited range to the justitia dei.* Still, some 
lines of exposition in Quest. 49 touch on that thought.* 

recompensatio totius offensse humani generis ; primo quidem propter magnitudinem 
caritatis ex qua patiebatur, secundo propter dignitatem vitae suae quam pro satisfactione 
ponebat, quse erat vita dei et hominis ; tertio propter gtneralitatem passionis et 
magnitudinem doloris assumpti, ut supra dictum est (Q. 46, Art. 6). £t ideo passio 
Christi non solum sufficiens, sed etiam supcrabundans satisfacHo fuit pro peccatis 
humani generis." 

^ To this satisfactio superabundans Thomas returns in the 4 Art. [redemptio : 
" respondeo dicenduro, quod per peccatum dupliciter homo obligatus erat, primo 
quidem servitute peccati, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. . . . Quia 
igitur diabolus hominem superaverat, inducendo ad peccatum, homo servituti diaboli 
addictus erat. Secundo, quantum ad reatum pcenae, quo homo erat obligatus 
secundum dei justitiam. Et hoc etiam est servitus quaedam ; ad servitutem enim 
pertinet quod aliquis patiatur, quod non vult, cum liberi hominis sit uti se ipso ut 
vult. Quia igitur passio Christi fiiit sufficiens et superabundans satbfactio pro peccato 
et reatu poenae generis humani, ejus passio fiiit quasi quoddam pretium per quod 
liberati sumus ab utraque obligatione. Nam ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfisidt, sive 
pro se sive pro alio, pretium quoddam dicitur, quo seipsum vel alium redimit a 
peccato et a pcena. . . . Christus autem satisfecit non quidem pecuniam dando aut 
aliquid hujusmodi, sed dando id quod fuit maximum, seipsum scil. pro nobis. Et 
idea passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio." 'Iliere is a not unimportant turn 
of thought (Q. 47, 2 ; 48, 3), where the suffering of Christ is looked at fiom the point 
of view of sacrifice. Here it is not merely love in general that is described as that 
which has efficacy in the voluntary sacrifice, but still more precisely obedience: 
'^Convenientissimum fuit, quod Christus ex obedientia pateretur . . . obedientia 
vero omnibus sacrificiis antefertur . . . miles vincere non potest nisi duci obediat, et 
ita homo Christus victoriam obtinuit per hoc quod deo fuit obediens. . . . Quia in 
morte Christi lex vetus consummata est, potest intelligi quod patiendo omnia veteris 
legis praecepta implevit : moralia quidam, quae in praeceptis caritatis fundantur, 
implevit in quantum passus est et ex dilectione patris et etiam ex dilectione proximi, 
caeremonialia vero praecepta legis, quae ad sacrificia et oblationes praecipue ordinantur, 
implevit Christus sua passione, in quantum omnia antiqua sacrificia fuerunt figurae 
illius veri sacriticii, quod Christus obtulit moriendo pro nobis. . . . Praecepta vero 
judicialia legis, quae praecipue ordinantur ad satisfaciendam injuriam passis, implevit 
Christus sua passione, permittens se ligno afiigi pro pomo quod de ligno homo 
rapuerat contra dei mandatum." 

2 See Art. 3 and 4 : *' Respondeo dicendum, quod per passionem Christi liberati 
sumus a reatu poenae dupliciter. Uno modo directe, in quantum scil. passio Christi 
fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccatis totius humani generis ; exhibita 

N 



194 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. II. 

With regard to merits a distinct idea is to be got under this 
term as to how far Christ's suffering really profits individuals. 
It is a circumstance of value that Thomas sets aside, and ceases 
to employ, the Greek thought which dominates his doctrine of 
\.\iQ person of Christ, namely, that the humanity of Christ is in 
itself human nature in general. With this mechanical idea of 
the matter he was not satisfied. Here also we see that between 
his doctrine of the person of Christ, and his doctrine of His 
work, there is quite a chasm. Only once ^ does he touch on 

autetn satisfactione 5ufficienti4ollitur reatus pcmcc (this is, of course, no taking over of 
penalty). Alio modo indirecte, in quantum scil. passio Christi est causa remissionis 
peccati, in quo fundatur reatus pcenoe/' To the objection that on the liberati poenae 
satisfactorix are still imposed by the Church, he replies thus : ** Ad hoc quod conse- 
quemur effectum passionis Christi, oportet nos ei configurari. Configuramur autem ei in 
baptismo sacramentaliter, secundum Rom. 6, 4: 'Consepuiti sumus ei per baptismum 
in mortem.' Unde Itaptisatis nulla poena satisfactoria imponitur, quia sunt totaliter 
liberati per satisfactionem Christi. Quia vero Christus semel tantum pro peccatis 
nostris mortuus est, ut dicitur I. Pet. 3, 18, ideo non potest homo secundario con- 
figurari morti Christi per sacramentum baptismi. Unde oportet quod illi, qui post 
baptismum peccant, configurentnr Christo patienti per aliquid poenalitatis vel 
passionis quam in se ipsis sustineant (!) Quae tamen multo minor sufficit, quam esset 
condigna peccato, cooperante satisfactione Christi." A wonderful illustration of 
satisfactio superabundans ! Even in the 4 Art. the reconciliatio dei is traced, not to 
the endurance of the penal suffering, but to the "sacrificium accepiissimum.*' God 
is reconciled (i) because the passio Christi peccatum removat, (2) because it is 
sacrifice; **est enim hoc proprie sacrificii effectus, ut per ipsum placetur deus"; 
for as man propter aliquod obsequium acceptum forgives the injury, ** similiter tantum 
bonuin fuit, quod Christus voluntarie passus est, quod propter hoc bonum in naiura 
humaita inventum deus placatus est super omni offensa generis humnni, quantum ad 
eos qui Christo passo conjunguntur." With a change of disposition on God*s part 
Thomas will have nothing to do, although he expresses himself more cautiously than 
the Lombard. ** Deus diligit omnes homines quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit, 
odit tamen eos quantum ad culpam . . ., non dicendum, quod passio Christi dicitur 
quantum ad hoc, deo nos reconciliasse, quod de novo nos amare inciperet, sed quia 
per passionem Christi sublata est odii causa, tum per ablationem peccati turn per 
recompensationem acceptabilioris beneficiiP In the 5 Art. the passio Christi is 
expressly related both to the peccatum commune toiius humame naturae (et quantum 
ad culpam et quantum ad reatum pcenee), and to the peccata propria singulorum, qui 
communicant ejus passioni per fidem et caritatem et fidei sacramenta. Yet in 
connection with the latter the removal of the reatus yxKroi is not expressly 
emphasised. The clearest passage on the penal worth of the death of Christ is 
in Q. 47, Art. 3 : ** in quo ostenditur et dei soveritas, qui peccatum sine poena 
dimittere nolult." But a connected view is not outlined from this as a starting-point, 
while such a view can be shown in Bernard. 
* See the foregoing note. 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEI. I9S 

the thought that Grod is reconciled because He has now found 
the good in human nature. Elsewhere he has quite a different 
view, with which indeed he crowns his discussion (Q. 48, i), 
and of which as his discussion proceeds he never loses sight 
It is the view hinted at by Anselm, that by His voluntary 
suffering Christ merited exaltation (Q. 49, 6), that the exalta- 
tion, however, cannot be conferred upon Him, but passes over 
from Him to the Church of which He is the Head.^ The ful- 
ness with which Thomas stated and repeated this thought is a 
guarantee that for him it was an extremely valuable one. It 
has also been expressed by him thus (Q. 48, Art 2) : " The 
head and the members are, as it were, one mystical person, and 
thus the satisfaction of Christ belongs to all believers^ just as 
to His own members " (caput et membra sunt quasi una per- 
sona mystica, et ideo satisfactio Christi ad omnes fideles per- 
tinet sicut ad sua membra). Here, finally, the conception of 
the ya/VA/i// (fideles) also (as the ecclesia) is introduced into the 
question about the effect and bearings of redemption ; but only 
in the ist Art. of Quest 49 has Thomas come to deal more 
closely with faith — simply however to pass over at once to 
love : *' It must be affirmed that by faith also there is applied 
to us the passion of Christ, with a view to its fruit being seen, 
according to the passage Rom. 3 : * Whom God hath set forth 
as a propitiator through faith, etc' But the faith by which we 
are cleansed from sin is not fides informis, (unformed faith), 
which can exist even along with sin, but is fides formata per 
caritatem (faith deriving form from love), so that in this way 
the passion of Christ is applied to us, not intellectually merely, 

1 Q. 48, Art. I : ** Christo data est gratia non solum sicut singulari personx, sed in 
quantum est caput ecclesiae, ut scil. ab ipso redundaret ad membra. Et ideo of>era 
Christi hoc modo se habent tam ad se quam ad sua membra sicut se habent opera 
alterius hominis in gratia constituti ad ipsum. . . .*' Q. 49, Art. I : ** Passio Christi 
causat remissionem peccatorum per modum rcdemptionis, quia enim ipse est caput 
nostrum, per passionem suam quam ex caritate et obedientia sustinuit, liberavit nos 
tam quam membra sua a peccatis, quasi per prelium suae passionis, sicut si homo per 
aliquod opus meritorium, quod manu cxerceret, redimeret se a pcccato quod pedibus 
<:ommisisset. Sicut enim naturale corpus est unum ex memhrorum diversitate 
constans, ita tota ecclesia, quae est mysticum corpus Christi, computatur quasi una 
persona cum suo capite, quod est Christus," and other passages, especially P. III., 
<2. 8. 



196 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. II. 

but also effectually." (" Dicendum quod etiam per fidem ap- 
plicatur nobis passio Christi ad percipiendum fructum ipsius, 
secundum illud Rom. 3 : * Quem proposuit deus propitiatorero 
per fidem, etc.* Fides autem per quam a peccato mundamur 
non est fides informis, quae potest esse etiam cum peccato, sed 
est fides formata per caritatem, ut sic passio Christi nobis ap- 
plicetur, non solum quantum ad intellectum, sed etiam quantum 
ad effectum.") 

When we review the exposition given by Thomas, we cannot 
escape the impression created by confusion (multa, non multum, 
[many things, not much]). The wavering between the hypo- 
thetical and the necessary modes of view, between objective and 
subjective redemption, further, between the different points of 
view of redemption, and finally, between a satisfactio super- 
abundans and the assertion that for the sins after baptism we 
have to supplement the work of Christ, prevents any distinct 
impression arising. It was only a natural course of develop- 
ment when Duns Scotus went on to reduce everything entirely 
to the relative. It is what always happens when an attempt 
is made to find a surer hold for the actual in what is assumed to 
be the metaphysically necessary ; this actual presents itself in 
the end only as ih^ possible^ and so, very soon also, as the irra- 
tional. No one thought of the moral necessity of penalty. 

Duns Scotus draws the true logical conclusion from the 
theory of satisfaction (as distinguished from the idea of vicarious 
penal suffering), by tracing everything to the " acceptatio " of 
God. All satisfaction and all merit obtain their worth from the 
arbitrary estimation of the receiver. Hence the value of Christ's 
death was as high as God chose to rate it. But in the strict 
sense of the term infinity cannot at all be spoken of here ; for 
(i) sin itself is not infinite, seeing that it is committed by finite 
beings (it is, at the most, quasi infinite, when it is measured, 
that is to say, though this is not necessary, by the injury done 
to the infinite God) ; (2) the merit of Christ is not infinite, for 
He suffered in His human (finite) nature' ; (3) in no sense is 

^ In Sent. III., Dist. 19, n. 7 : ** Meritum Christi fuit iinitum, quia a principio 
finito essentialiter dependens, etiam accipiendo ipsum cum omnibus respectibus, sive 
cum respectu ad suppositum Vcrbi, sive cum respectu ad tinem, quia omnes respectus 
isti erant finiti." 



CHAP. II.] REVISION OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 197 

an infinite merit needed, because God can estimate any merit 
as highly as He pleases ; for nothing is meritorious in itself, 
because nothing is good in itself, but the sovereign divine will 
declares what it wills to be good and meritorious. And so 
Duns has not hesitated to assert that an angel, or even a purus 
homo who should have remained free from original sin and been 
endowed with grace, could have redeemed us. It is a question 
merely of receiving the first impulse ; the rest every man must 
acquire for himself together with grace. Grace must only raise 
him, so to speak, above the point at which he is dead. Of 
course, Duns made the further effort to. show the conveniens 
of the death of the God-man, and here he works out essentially 
the same thoughts as Thomas. But this no more belongs, 
strictly speaking, to dogmatic. For dogmatic, it is enough if it 
is proved that in virtue of His arbitrary will God has destined 
a particular number to salvation ; that in virtue of the same 
arbitrary will He already determined before the creation of the 
world, that the election should be carried out through the suffer- 
ing of the God-man ; and that He now completes this plan by 
accepting the merit of the God-man, imparting the gratia prima 
to the elect, and then expecting the rest from their personal 
efforts. Here the reason at bottom for Christ's having died is 
its having been prophesied (see Justin), and it was prophesied 
because God so decreed it. Everything ** infinite " — which is 
surely the expression for what is divine and alone of its kind — 
IS here cleared away ; as a fact, human action would have been 
enough here, for nothing is necessary in the moral sense, and 
nowhere does there appear more than a quasi-infinity.^ This 

1 See Ritschl, I., pp. 73-82 ; Werner, p. 454 flf. In Sentent. III., Dist. 19, Q. i. 
The 20 Dist. is entirely devoted to the refutation of Anselm. Let us quote some 
leading sentences here: *' Sicut omne aliud a deo ideo est bonum, quia adeo volitum, 
et non e converso, sic meritum illud tantum bonum erat, pro quanto acceptabatur et 
ideo meritum, quia acceptatum, non autem e converso quia meritum est et bonum, 
ideo acceptatum." ... '* Christi passio electis solum primam gratiam disponentem 
ad gloriam consummatam efficaciter meruit. Quantum vero adtinet ad meriti 
sufficientiam, fuit profecto illud flnitum, quia causa ejus finita fuit, vid. voluntas 
naturse assumpt® et summa gloria illi coUata. Non enim Christus quatenus deus 
meruit, sed in quantum homo. Proinde si exquiras, quantum valuerit Christi 
meritum secundum sufficientiam, valuit procul dubio quantum fuit a deo acceptatum, 
si quidem divina acceptatio est potissima causa et ratio omnis meriti. Omne enim 



198 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

theory, the product of thought on the uncontrollable, predesti- 
nating arbitrariness of God (and on legal righteousness), stands 
side by side with an explicit doctrine of two natures !* But it is 
quite distinctly irreligious in this respect, that it confines the 
work of Christ to the procuring of that " gratia prima " (primary 
grace), which is nothing but the creating of a kind of possibility ^ 
in order that man may himself take concern for the reality olMi^ 
redemption.* 

By Scotus it was brought about that this doctrine also be- 
came severed from faith, and was entirely transformed into a 
dialectic problem. In this lies the disintegration of dogma 
through Scotism. The doctrine of the Trinity, Christologfy, and 
the doctrine of redemption, were now happily withdrawn from 
the domain of the inwardly necessary, comforting faith that 
saves. Thus it continued to be in the Nominalist school. Only 
in the one particular, which, however, was constantly brought 
under the category of the conveniens — namely, that the love of 
God shown in the death of Christ becomes a motive to recipro- 
cal love — did there survive a meagre remnant of an inspiring 
thought. While in the fourteenth century the Scotist theory of 
satisfactio secundum acceptationem (satisfaction on the ground 
of acceptance) gained always more adherents, was here and 

aliud a deo ideo est bonum quia a deo dilectum, et non e contrario . . . dens non 
acceptat opus idcirco quod sit meritorium aut bonum. Tantum ergo valuit Christ! 
meritum sufficienter, quantum potuit et voluit ipsum trinitas acceptare. Verum 
tamen ex sua ratione formal! et de condigno non potuit in infinitum seu pro infinitis 
acceptari, quia nee illud in se fuit formaliter infinitum. Nihilosecius si spectes 
suppositi merentis circumstantiam et dignitatem, habebat quandam extrinsecam 
rationem, propter quam de congruo in infinitum extensive, id est pro infinitis, potuit 
acceptari. Sed quid meruit Christus ? Meruit sane primam gratiam omnibus qui 
earn recipiunt, qux et absque nostro merito confertur. Nam licet in adultis qui 
baptizantur non desideretur aliqua dispositio, nihilominus non merentur illam gratiam 
per suam dispositionem . . . nullus actu ingreditur regnum coeleste, nisi cooperetur, 
si habuerit facultatem, et utatur prima gratia, quam sibi Christus promeruit." 

^ Certainly this doctrine of two natures, from its Nestorianism, has already the 
tendency in it to do away with the deity of Christ. 

' The redemption theory of Scotus, which, dialectically considered, is sui>erior to 
the Thomist through its completeness, is very severely criticised even by Schwane 
who, however, does not bring out its Pelagian feature (p. 327 ff. ). He speaks of 
^* shallow apprehension of the incarnation, and a weakening of the conceptions of 
righteousness and merit." 



CHAP. IL] revision OF THE ARTICULI FIDEL 1 99 

thdre carried even to the point of blasphemy by the formalism 
of dialectic, and had an influence even on the Thomists, traces 
are not wanting in the fifteenth century that more serious 
reflection, dealing with the essence of the matter, had begun to 
return. This had undoubtedly a connection with the revival of 
Aiigustinianism^ perhaps also with a renewed study of St, 
Bernard^ and it is to be met with more in the practical religious, 
than in the systematic expositions ; indeed, in the former the 
thought of Christ's having borne the penalty of guilt in the 
interests of the righteousness of God seems never to have 
entirely disappeared. Ritschl points to Gerson.^ " Gerson 
declares sin to be the crime of high treason, and finds God's 
righteousness so great that in mercy He surrenders His innocent 
Son to penalty, evidences, in this way, the harmony between 
His righteousness and His mercy, and removes sin on condition 
that the sinner unites himself to Christ by faith, Z.^., by obedi- 
ence and imitation.^ In the Nominalist school the same view 
is still to be met with in Gabriel BieL' In the end, even John 
Wessel comes back to it" But Ritschl is inclined to think that 
the idea of the penal value of Christ's death, which, from the 
time of Athanasius, had ever again appeared sporadically in the 
Church, did not pass from Bicl and Wessel to the Reformers.* 

1L.C. I., p. 85. 

''Expos, in pass. dom. (0pp. cd. du Pin III. pp. 1157, I187, I188) : **Per laesae 
majestatis crimen morti est obnoxius. Rex tamen adeo Justus fiierit, quod nee uUo 
pacto crimen tuum dimittere velit impunitum, altera vero ex parte tarn benignus et 
misericors, quod proprium filium suum innocentem doloribus committat et morti, et 
quidem sponte sua, ut justitiam concordet cum misericordia fiatque criminis emen- 
datio. . . . Nunquam deus malum impunitum permitteret, eapropter omnia peccata 
et delicta nostra Jesu Christo supposuit. Ideo ipse est justitia et redemptio nostra, 
modo nos junxerimus ei et per fidem gratiamque ei adhseserimus." 

'See Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, III., i, p. 249 ff. Seeberg, I.c., p. 

147. 

^ In dealing with the history of dogma, we are not required to enter on the hbtory 
of the doctrine of Scripture, for that doctrine underwent no change, even the un- 
certainties about the Canon were not removed, and the slight differences in the way 
of understanding the notion of inspiration have no weight attaching to them. The 
history of Bible prohibition, or of the restriction of the use of the Bible among the 
laity, does not fall to be considered here (see above, p. 156). 



200 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 



B. The Scholastic Doctrine of the Sacraments} 

The uncertainty of the Schoolmen regarding the doctrine of 
redemption, and the fact that the treatment of it could be 
as easily relegated by them to the School as the doctrines of the 
Trinity and of the natures in Christ, are explained from the cir- 
cumstance, that in the doctrine of the Sacraments it was definitely 
set forth what faith in the divine grace in Christ needed. In 
the Sacraments this grace is exhibited, and in the Sacrament of 
the Eucharist particularly it is clearly and intelligibly traced 
back — through the doctrine of transubstantiation — to the in- 
carnation and death of Christ. That was enough. Those facts 
now form merely th^ presuppositions ; faith lives in the contem- 
plation and enjoyment of the Sacraments. But the Sacraments 
are committed to the Church, and are administered by the 
hierarchy (as servants, priests, and as judges). Thus the con- 
nection with Christ, which is effected only through the Sacra- 
ments, is at the same time mediated by the Church. Christ and 
the Church indeed are really made one, in so far as the same 
Church which administers the Sacraments is also, as the mystical 
body of Christ, so to speak, one mystical person with Him. 
This is the fundamental thought of Mediaeval Catholicism, which 
was adhered to even by the majority of those who opposed 
themselves to the ruling hierarchy. 

The Schoolmen's doctrine of the Sacraments has its root in 
that of Augustine ; but it goes far beyond it (formally and 
materially). Above all, there was not merely a passing out of 
view in the Middle Ages of the connection between verbum and 
sacramentum, on which Augustine had laid such stress, but the 
verbum disappeared entirely behind the sacramental sign. The 
conception became still more magical, and consequently more 
objectionable. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in 
its seven Sacraments Catholicism created a very efficient and 
impressive institution of an educational kind, the service of 

iMunscher, § 138-152. Hahn, Lehre v. d. Sacramenten, 1864: same author, 
Doctr. romanse de num. sacram. septennario rationes hist. 1859. Schwane, I.e., pp. 
579-693. 



■CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 201 

which, however, for the individual, did not consist in giving him 
•certainty of salvation, but in training him as a member of the 
Church. And yet the mediaeval doctrine of the Sacraments 
must be regarded, at least in its Thomist form, as the logical 
■development of the Old Catholic fundamental view ; for the 
<lefinition of grace given by Thomas (P. III., Q. 62, Art i) : 
^^ grace is nothing else than tlu communicated likeness of the divine 
nature^ according to the passage II Pet. i : he hath given to 
us great and precious promises, that we may be partakers of the 
divine nature " (gratia nihil est aliud quam partidipata similitudo 
divinae naturae secundum illud, II Pet i : Magna nobis et 
pretiosa promissa donavit, ut divina simus consortes natura), 
allows of no otlier form of grace than tlte magical sacramental 
Augustine's view, which, however, does not at bottom contra- 
dict the one just stated, is here thrust aside, and only comes 
under consideration so far as a link with it is found in the 
^* participata similitudo divinae naturae " (communicated likeness 
of the divine nature). Hence the further suppression of the 
verbum, to which even Augustine, though he has the merit of 
having taken account of it, had not done full justice. 

A strictly developed doctrine of the Sacraments could not 
exist, so long as the number of the Sacraments was not defi- 
nitely fixed. But on this point, as antiquity had handed down 
nothing certain, the greatest vacillation prevailed for centuries, 
so difficult was it to determine anything which had not already 
been determined by the tradition of ancient times. The 
doctrine of the Sacraments was accordingly developed under 
the disadvantage of not knowing for certain to what sacred acts 
the general conceptions were to be applied. Still, theology had 
already wrought for long with the number seven, before the 
number was officially recognised by the Church. 

The number seven developed itself in the following way : As 
rsacred acts in a pre-eminent sense, there had been handed down 
from ecclesiastical antiquity only baptism and the Eucharist, 
but baptism included the Chrisma (anointing). This last could 
be counted separately or not At the same time, there was an 
indefinite group of sacred acts which were enumerated quite 
variously (the reckoning of the Areopagite was not determina- 



202 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

tive). Bernard, e.g,^ speaks of many Sacraments, and himself 
mentions ten.' Even Hugo of St. Victor gives quite a special 
place to baptism and the Eucharist. Yet it was just he who 
contributed to a widening of the conception. By him,* as well 
as by Abelard,* there are reckoned as the sacramenta majora 
or spiritualia baptism, the Eucharist, confirmation, unction * and 
marriage.* How this combination arose is unknown. It con- 
tinued to exist, however, in the school of Abelard, /.^., there was 
no reduction again made, only additions followed. Robert 
Pull us may have exercised an influence here,® who in his Sen- 
tences counts along with the other three Sacraments, not unc- 
tion and marriage, but confession ^ and ordination.® From the 
combination of these reckonings the number seven as applied ta 
the Sacraments may have arisen.® No doubt the sacred number 
also gave fixity to this particular enumeration.^^ It is first found in 
the Sentence Book of Alexander III., when he was still Master 
Roland," and then in the Lombard.^* The latter however repre- 
sents it, not as a recognised tenet, but as his own view, without 

1 See Hahn, p. X03 f., and in general the copious proofs, pp. 79-133. 

^Summa sentent. tract., 5-7. 

' See Deutsch, Aboard, p. 401 ff. 

^ Extreme unction cannot be traced back under the terra " Sacrament '* further than 
to Innocent I. (ep. ad Decent). 

B Marriage of course is very often named a sacrament from the earliest times, on 
the ground of the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

•Sentent. V. 22-24; VII. 14. 

7 How gradually the "sacrament of penance" arose our whole account in the 
foregoing chapters has shown ; see Steitz, Das Romische Buss-sacrament, 1854. 
Gregory I. called the rcconciliatio of the sinner a sacrament. From the time of 
Petrus Daiiiiani (69. orat. ) confession was often so described, e,g, , even by Bernard. 

" Since Augustine's time ordination had very frequently been styled a ** sacra- 
ment " ; but even the anointing of princes, and the consecration of bishops and of 
churches, etc., were regarded as Sacraments. 

® In a passing way the number six also occurs. In the twelfth century, moreover, 
the considerations connected with the Sacraments have a very close connection with 
the struggle against the heretics (Catharists). It may be that subsequent investigation 
will succeed in showing that the fixing of the number seven was the direct consequence 
of this struggle. 

10 See Hahn, p. 113 f. 

" Denifle in Archiv. f. Litt.-u. K.-Gesch. d. Mittelalters, vol. I., pp. 437, 460, 
467. 

J« Sentent. IV., dist. 2 A. The former view, that Otto of Bamberg already has. 
the number seven, is disproved ; see Hahn, p. 107. 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 205 

specially emphasising it The vacillation continued to exist 
even in the period that followed. The decrees of the great 
Councils of II 79 and 121 5 imply that there was still nothing 
fixed as to the number of the Sacraments: But the great 
Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, who followed the Lom- 
bard, all accepted seven as the number of the Sacraments, and 
although special stress was laid by them on baptism and par- 
ticularly the Eucharist, which was described, ^.^., by Thomas as 
the most potent of all the Sacraments (" potissimum inter alia 
sacramenta sacramentum,")^ they already made some attempt 
to vindicate the number on internal grounds.* For the first 

1 P. III., Q. 65, Art. 4: '* Sacramentum eucharistiae est potissimum inter alia 
sacramenta. Reasons : (i) because in it there is contained Christus substantialiter, 
not merely a virtus instrumentalis participata a Christo : (2) because all other Sacra- 
ments look to this Sacrament sicut ad finem (this is then proved in the case of each 
separately) ; (3) because almost all Sacraments in eucharistia consummantur." 

'In I.e. the Sacraments are graded according to their value : **Aliorum sacra* 
mentorum (i.e., tlie Euchaiist is previously assumed to be the chief Sacrament) com- 
paratio ad invicem potest esse multiplex. Nam in via necessitatis baptismus est 
potissimum sacramentorum, in via autem perfectionis sacrnmentum ordinis ; medio 
autem modo se habet sacramentum confirmationis. Sacramentum vero paeni- 
tentise et extremae unctionis sunt inferioris gradus a pnedictis sacramentis, quia, 
sicut dictum est, ordinantur ad viam Chrisiianam non per se, sed quasi per 
accidens, soil, in remedium supervenientis defectus. Inter quae extrema unctio 
comparatur ad penitentiam, sicut confirmatio ad baptismum ; ita scil. quod poeni* 
tentia est majoris necessitatis, sed extrema unctio est majoris perfectionis." But in 
Q. 65, Art. I, the number seven is justified at length. The Sacraments are instituted 
** ad perficiendum hominem in his quae pertinent ad cultum dei secundum religionem 
Christianac vitae et in remedium contra defectum peccati. Utroque modo con- 
venienter ponuntur VII. sacramenta. Vita enim spiritualis conformitatem aliquam 
habet ad vitam corporalem. " In the bodily life of the individual there is taken into 
consideration his individual weal and his weal as a social being. This is then set 
forth scholastically in several sub-sections, and it is then shown that in the spiritual 
life baptism means birth (regeneration), confirmation the augmentum (robur), the 
eucharist, nourishment ; penance, healing of the maladies that have super- 
vened ; extreme unction, the taking away of the " reliquiae peccatorum." These 
five Sacraments relate to the individual. To man as animal sociale there relate also 
in spiritual things ordo and marriage. Proof : the potestas regendi multitudinem et 
exercendi actus publicos is necessary in the spiritual life, and marriage provides for 
the propagatio tam in corporali quam in spirituali vita. In the same way it is now 
shown that each separate Sacrament has also its meaning contra defectum peccati, 
and that the number seven is conveniens (e.g. , ordo contra dissolutionem multitudinis 
and marriage in remedium contra concupiscentiam personalem et contra defectum 
multitudinis, qui per mortem accidit). Thomas also mentions another view, which 
he had found entertained by others: '*fidei respondet baptismus et ordinatur c. 



204 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

time at Florence (1439) was there a definite ecclesiastical de- 
claration made as to seven being the number of the Sacra- 
ments.^ 

The technical revision of the conception of the sacrament 
begins with Hugo of St. Victor. He sets out from the 
Augustinian definition : " sign of a sacred thing " (** visible form 
of invisible grace '*), but it appears to him unsatisfactory, because 
too wide. He adds to it two things : first, that the sacrament 
must have a natural resemblance to the sacred thing which it 
represents ; second, that it is also the vehicle of this sacred 
thing, and communicates it to the receiver of the sign. Hence 
(de sacram, Christ fid. I. 9, 2) : "A sacrament is a corporeal or 
material element set forth sensibly to view, representing by re- 
semblance, signifying by institution, and containing by consecra- 
tion some invisible and spiritual grace^' (sacramentum est 
corporale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum 
ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione significans et ex 
sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem 
gratiam), or (Summa tract. IV. i): "a sacrament is a visible 
form of invisible grace conveyed in it, />., which t/ie sacrament 
itself conveys y for it is not only the sign of a sacred thing, but 
also its efficacious operation " (sacramentum est visibilis forma 
invisibilis gratiae in eo collatae, quam scil. confert ipsum sacra- 
mentum, non enim est solummodo sacrae rei signum sed etiam 

culpam originalem, spei extrema unctio et ordinatur c. culpam venialem, caiitati 
eucharistia et ordinatur c. poena! itatem malitite, prudentise ordo et ordinatur c. ignor- 
antiam, justitise psenitentia et ordinatur c. peccatum mortale, temperantife matri- 
xnonium et ordinatur c concupiscentiam, furtitudini confirmalio et ordinatur c 
infirmitatem." We may smile at these attempts; but yet we shall not be able to 
deny the serviceableness of this combination of the seven Sacraments which accom' 
pany life. The inclusion particularly of orders on the one hand, and of marriage on 
the other, was a master-stioke of a perhaps unconscious policy. 

* Eugene IV. in Bull " Exultate deo " (Mansi XXXI., p. 1054) : **( sacramentorum 
septem novae legis) quinque prima ad spiritalem uniuscujusque hominis in se ipso 
perfectionem, duo ultima ad totius ecclesiae regimen multiplicationemque ordinata 
sunt (quite according to Thomas, see above) ; per baptisnium enim spiritualiter 
renascimur, per coniirmationem augemur in gratia et roboramur in fide, renati autcm 
et roborati nutrimur divina eucharistiae alimonia. Quod si per peccatum aegritudinem 
incurrimus animoe, per pccnitentiam spiritualiter sanamur, spiritualiter etiam et corpo- 
raliter, prout animae expedit, per extiemam unctionem ; per ordinem vero ecclesia 
gubernatur et uiultiplicatur spiritualiter, per matrimonium corporaliter augetur.'* 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 20$ 

efficacia). The sacrament has, further, the similitudo from 
nature, the significatio from institution, the efficacia through the 
consecrating word of the priest, or the first from the Creator, the 
second from Christ,^ and the third from the dispenser (!). This 
German " Mystic " was therefore the first to give fixed form to 
the mischievous definition which so sadly externalised the 
sacrament and eliminated the word. The Augustinian 
distinction between the sacrament and the saving benefit in the 
sacrament (res sacramenti or res cujus sacramentum est) Hugo 
retained. 

Hugo's definition passed over to the Lombard, and was never 
again set aside in the Church. By it the Sacraments, in the 
stricter sense of the term, were raised above the field of the 
" sacramentalia " : the Sacraments are not merely signs ; they 
are vehicles and " causes " of sanctification. The Lombard de- 
fines thus (Sent. IV., Dist. i B): "That is properly called a 
sacrament which is a sign of the grace of God, and a form of 
invisible grace in such a way that it bears the image thereof, and 
exists as a cause (et causa existat). Sacraments, therefore, are 
instituted for the purpose, not merely of signifying, but also of 
sanctifying. For things that are merely instituted for the sake of 
signifying are only signs and not sacraments, as were the carnal 
sacrifices and ceremonial observances of the old law." But, 
further. Sacraments are "signa data" (signs given, not "natural"^ 
signs), in the sense, namely, that they rest on free divine institu- 
tion. The Lombard differs, accordingly, from Hugo in his 
regarding as necessary, not a corporeal or material element, but 
only some kind of sign, which may therefore consist also in an 
(ict ; and also in his not saying that the Sacraments contain 
grace, but only — with greater caution — that they effect it 
causally. 

In general, this definition of the Lombard lies at the founda- 
tion of the later definitions. But the more firmly it came to be 
held that the number of the Sacraments was seven, the more 
distinctly was the difficulty felt of applying the definition given 
to all the Sacraments individually. Hence it is not to be 
wondered at that the Nominalist theologians abstained more and 

1 But Hugo still refrained from tracing all Sacraments to institution by Christ 



206 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. H 

more from f^iving a general definition that dealt with the 
^ssence.^ 

Thomas begins (III., Q. 60) his statement of the doctrine 
of the Sacraments with the words: "After consideration 
of those things which relate to the mysteries of the incarnate 
Word, there are to be considered the Sacraments of the 
Churchy which have efficacy from the incarnate Word Him- 
self"* By these terms, the unguarded definition of Hugo 
is set aside. He then proceeds, down to Quest. 65, to state the 
general doctrine of the Sacraments. Here it is worthy of note 
that Thomas, going still further than the Lombard, modifies the 
cruder conception of Hugo (" continet "). Indeed, he will not 
accept, without guarding clauses, the "causa existit" of the 
Lombard. He rejects, certainly, the opinion of Bernard and 
others, that God only works " adhibitis sacramentis " (with em- 
ployment of sacraments). This would not lead beyond an inter- 
pretation of them assigns; but he then shows that it can be said 
of the Sacraments that "in some way" (per aliquem modum) they 
" cause grace." The " causa principalis " of grace, rather, is God, 
who works as the fire does by its warmth, that i<?, communicates 
in grace His own nature. The Sacraments are the "causa 
instrumentalis " ; but this latter cause " does not act by virtue of 
its own form, but only through the impulse it receives from the 
principal agent " (non agit per virtutem suae formae, sed solum 
per motum quo movetur a principali agente). ** Hence the eflTect 
does not derive its character from the instrument, but from the 
principal agent ; as a couch does not derive its character from 



^Biel, Sentent. IV., Diat. i., Q. i, dub. i (see Hahn, I.e., p. i8 f.): "Sciendum 
quod duplex est definitio. — Una est oratio exprimens quid rei, alia est oratio exprimens 
quid nominLs. Primo modo nihil definitur, nisi sit res una h. e. terminus significans 
unam rem (that is logical Nominalism). Definitione quid nominis potest omnis 
terminus categorematicus definiri, quicquid significet in recto vel in obliquo. Nam 
pro omni nomine possunt poni plura nomina 'distincte significantia ilia, quae 
significantur per illud unum nomen tarn in recto quam in obliquo. Ad propositum 
dicitur, quod sacramentum non potest definiri primo modo h. e. , definitione quid rei 
quia sacramentum non res una, sed aggregatum ex pluribus . . . sed tantum definitur 
definitione quid nominis." 

More exactly, Q. 62, Art. 5 : ** Sacramenta novce legis habent virtutem ex passione 
•Christi." Hence also the incorporatio in Christo is the effect (Q. 62, Art. i). 



CHAP. IL] scholastic DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 20/ 

the axe, but from the design which is in the mind of the artificer 
{unde effectus non assimilatur instrumento sed principali 
agenti ; sicut lectus non assimilatur securi, sed arti, quae est in 
mente artificis). And in this way the Sacraments of the new 
law cause grace, for they are applied to men by divine appoint- 
ment (ex divina ordinatione) for the purpose of causing grace in 
them (ad gratiam in cis causandam). ... It is to be asserted 
that the causa principalis cannot properly be called the sign of 
an effect that may be hidden (effectus licet occulti), though the 
cause itself is sensible and manifest; but the causa instrumentalis, 
if it be manifest, can be called the sign of a hidden effect, 
because (eo quod) it is not only cause, but also in a certain way 
(quodammodo) effect, in so far as it is set in motion (movetur) 
by the principal agent And according to this, the Sacraments 
of the new law are at the same time causes and signs, and hence 
it is that it is commonly said of them, that they effect what they 
symbolise (eflficiunt quod figurant)." The " causae et signa " is 
in the style of Old Catholic thought ; but the opposition of a 
spiritual to a coarse Mysticism is quite specially apparent here. 
In the period that followed, the loosening of grace from sacra- 
ment, in the sense of regarding the latter as merely associated 
with the former, was carried still further, but not because a more 
spiritual view was advocated (as by Thomas), or because weight 
was laid on the " word," ^ but because the conception of God, 
which indeed exercised its influence even upon Thomas, only in 
another way, allowed only of a conjunction by virtue of divine 
arbitrariness.' Bonaventura already had denied, both that the 
Sacraments contain grace substantially (substantialiter), and 

^ This laying of weight on the word would, on the other hand, have necessarily led lo 
the recognition of a closer union of sacrament and grace ; for the word, as the word 
of forgiveness of sin, isitself the grace. The mistake therefore of Thomas and the 
Lombard does not lie in their uniting the Sacraments too closely with grace by calling 
them causae (indeed the position, rather, of Hugo is correct — ** continent gratiim ") ; 
their mistake lies in their defining grace as " participata similitudo divinx natune " ; 
for to describe a grace so conceived of as the content or the effect of the Sacra? 
ments amounts to changing the Sacrament into a magical means. We can understand 
the relative title which the Nominalists had as over against this, to regard the grace 
so conceived of as merely accompanying the Sacrament ; but by this again the 
certainty and comfoiting power of God's offer of grace were imperilled. 

2 Brevilog., p. VI., c. i. 



210 . HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

ment only "per accidens/' that is, by means of the added 
faith I !)/ while Scotus declared circumcision to be a Sacrament 
efficacious ex opere operato (**by effect of Christ's passion"). 
But at the Council of Florence Thomas's view was approved : * 
" the Sacraments of the new law differ much from the Sacra- 
ments of the old law. For the earlier did not cause grace, but 
only prefigured di grace to be given through the passion of Christ, 
while those which we have both contain grace, and convey it to 
those who worthily receive" (complete return to the position of 
Hugo and Thomas). 

In what follows the chief points of the Thomist doctrine are 
stated, since that doctrine finally became dominant : 

Generically (in genere) the Sacraments as a whole are neces- 
sary to salvation, but specifically (in specie) this applies, in the 
strictest sense, only to baptism. The other Sacraments partly 
come under the rule " non defectus sed contemptus damnat " (not 
omission but contempt condemns), and they are partly necessary 
only under particular circumstances (orders, marriage, extreme 
unction, even the Sacrament of Penance). But the perplexity 

lEven Thomas makes this distinction in Sentent. IV., Dist. 2, Q. i, Art 4, and, 

moreover, we find here the expression ** ex opere operato," which we look for in vain 

in parallel passages of the Summa, although he has the thing it denotes (Q. 61, Art. 

IV., and elsewhere). In the commentary on the Lombard the words occur ; •* Sacra- 

menta veteris legis non habebant aliquam efficaciam ex opere oi>erato sed solum ex 

fide ; non autem ita est de sacramentis novae legis, quae ex opere operato gratiaro 

conferunt." On the expression *'ex opere operato" see R.-Encyckl.» XIII., p. 

277 f. It was already used in the twelfth century (not by the Lombard), before it 

was applied to the Sacraments. As distinguished from the expression ** ex opere 

operantis or operante," it denotes that the act as such is meant, not the actor. An 

effect ex opere operato therefore is an effect that is produced simply by the act itself 

as performed, independently of all co-operation of him who performs it, or of him 

who derives l^enefit from it. Peter of Poictiers is supposed to have been the first to 

use the term in connection with the doctrine of the Sacraments (he adds further ** ut 

liceat uli.") William of Auxerre says : ** Opus operans est ipsa actio (oblatio) vituli, 

opus operatum est ipsa caro vituli sc. ipsum oblatum, ipsa caro Christi." Also 

Albertus M. on John 6, 29 : ** Dixerunt antiqui dicentes, quod est opus operans ei 

opus operatum. Opus operans est, quod est in operante virtutis opus vel a virtuie 

elicitum vel quod est essentialis actus virtutis, et sine illo nihil valet virtus .nd 

salutem. Opus autem operatum est extrinsecum factum quod apothelesma vocant 

sancti, sicut operatum legis est sacrificium factum vel circumcisio facta vel tnle 

aliquid." 

2MansiXXXL, p. 1054. 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 211 

showing itself here appears still greater when the Sacraments are 
considered in their effects. It is here seen, that is to say, that 
according to the Augustinian distinction of sacramentum and 
res sacramenti all would require to have a threefold effect, 
namely, first, a significative (sacramentum); second, a neutral 
(as compared with the real saving benefit of grace) or prepara- 
tory (sacramentum et res) — Augustine called this character, and 
compared it with the corporalis nota militiae (corporal mark of 
military service) ; and, third, a saving effect (res sacramenti). 
Now, this distinction Thomas also followed. He shows that 
those who are set apart to the service of God must, first of all, 
have a certain stamp impressed on them, as in the case of 
soldiers. Through this process of stamping a certain capacity is 
imparted, /.^., for receptio et traditio cultus dei (receiving and 
administering the worship of God) ; hence the character is the 
** character Christi." This character is not implanted in the 
essentia (essence), but in the potentia (powers) of the soul, and 
as participatio sacerdotii Christi (participation in the priesthood 
of Christ) is engraven on the soul " indelibly," and hence can- 
not be repeated. Yet all Sacraments do not impart such a 
character, but only those which qualify the man " ad recipiendum 
vel tradendum ea quae sunt divini cultus " (for receiving and 
dispensing those things which pertain to divine worship), and 
this holds good of baptism, confirmation, and orders. The 
objection, that surely all Sacraments make man a "partaker 
of the priesthood of Christ," and so, must impart a character, is 
obviated by the ingenious distinction between that formula and 
the other : " deputari ad agendum aliquid vel recipiendum quod 
pertineat ad cultum sacerdotii Christi " (deputed to do something 
or receive something that pertains to the worship connected with 
the priesthood of Christ) (baptism, orders, confirmation).' So 

* P. III., Q. 63, Art. 2-6 ; cf. I : " sacraiuenta novae legis ad duo ordinantur, vid. 
ad remedium c. peccata et ad perficienclam animam id his qua? pertinent ad cultum 
dei secundum ritum Christianse vitse. Quicumque autem ad aliquid certum depu- 
tatur, consuevit ad illud consignari, sicut milites qui adscribebantur ad militiam anti- 
•quitus solebant quibusdam characteribus corporalibus insigniri, eo quod deputabantur 
ad aliquid corporale." This is then applied to the spiritual, see Art. 2 : ** Sacra* 
menta nova legis characterem imprimunt, in quantum per ea deputantur homines ad 
cultum dei secundum ritum Christianas religionis." Also Art. 3: "Totus ritus 



212 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

also if the serious objection is urged that " in any Sacrament of 
the new law there is something that is only res, and something 
that is only sacramentum, and something that is res and sacra- 
mentum," and that therefore in every Sacrament a character is 
to be assumed, since this character is just res and sacramentum, 
the objection is got quit of by saying that that which is at the 
same time res and sacramentum does not require always to be 
a character.' This whole theory was sanctioned at Florence 
(1. c.) : " Among the Sacraments there are three which indelibly 
impress on the soul character, that is, a certain spiritual sign 
distinct from the rest (a caeteris); hence they are not repeated 
in the same person. But the remaining four do not impress 
character and admit of repetition." 

The question, " What is a Sacrament ? " * is answered as 
follows : it is (i) a sign ; (2) not any sign whatever of a sacred 
thing (quodvis rei sacrae signum), but such a sign of a sacred 
thing as makes man holy ; (3) this *' making holy" (sanctificare) 
is to be looked at under three aspects : ** the cause of our sancti- 
fication is the passion of Christ, Xki^form of sanctification consists 
in grace and virtues, the ultimate end (finis) is life eternal.*' 
Hence now the complete definition : ** A sacrament is a sign 
commemorative of what went beTore (rememorativum ejus quod 
praecessit), viz,^ the passion of Christ, and representative 
(demonstrativum) of what is effected in us by the passion of 
Christ, viz.^ grace, and anticipatory, that is, predictive (prog- 
nosticum, i.e.y praenuntiativum) of future glory " ; (4) the sacra- 
ment must always be a ** res sensibilis," for it corresponds with 
the nature of man that he should attain to the knowledge of 
intelligible, through sensible, things; (5) these sensible signs 
must be " res determinatae," that is, God must have selected and 
appointed these things : " in the use of Sacraments two things 
can be considered, viz,y divine worship and the sanctification of 

'christianae religionis derivatur a sacerdotio Christi, et ideo manifestum est, quod 
character sacramen talis specialiter est charactet Christi, cujus sacerdotio configurantur 
fideles secundum sacramentales characteres, qui nihil aliud sunt quanl quxdam partid* 
pationes sacerdotii Christi." 

1 The real, at least the original, motive here, is to save the objectivity of the sacra- 
ment in view of unbelieving reception. 

aQ. 60. 



CHAP. IL] scholastic DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 21 3 

man, of which the first pertains to men viewed in their relation 
to God (pertinet ad homines per comparationem ad deum), the 
second, on the other hand, pertains to God viewed in His relation 
to man ; but it does not belong to anyone to determine what is 
in the power of another, but only what is in his own power " ; 
hence " in the Sacraments of the new law, by which men are 
sanctified, it is necessary to use things appointed by divine 
institution (ex divina institutione determinatis)"; (6) it is very 
fitting that ** words " also are used in connection with the Sacra- 
ments, because the Sacraments are thereby in a certain way 
conformed (quodammodo conformantur) to the incarnate Word, 
and can thus symbolise the sacred things more plainly ; * and, 
moreover (7) " verba determinata " are necessary, just as *• res 
sensibiles determinatae " are necessary, nay, they are necessary 
even in a higher degree ; hence he who utters sacramental words 
in a corrupt form, if this is done designedly (qui corrupte profert 
verba sacramentalia, si hoc ex industria facit). does not show 
that he intends to do what the Church does, and thus the sacra- 
ment is not seen to be perfectly celebrated (non videtur perfici 
sacramentum) ; nay, even an unintentional lapsus linguae, which 
destroys the sense of the words {e,g.^ if one says, " in nomine 
matris ") hinders the Sacrament from becoming perfect ; likewise 
(8) every addition or subtraction annuls the Sacrament, if made 
with the intention of introducing another rite than that of the 
Church. Further, the res sensibiles are described as being the 
materia, the words as they^rw^ (Aristotelian) of the Sacrament* 
To the question as to the necessity of the Sacraments,* it is 
replied (i) that they are necessary on three grounds, {a) from 
the constitution of human nature (ex conditione humanae naturae ; 
man must be led through the corporeal to the intelligible) ; {b) 
from the state of man (ex statu hominis ; " medicinal remedy 

^ So it is only for this reason that the word is necessary in connection with the 
Sacrament. 

* Hugo and the Lombard had already described the ** words " as the /orfn. This 
view likewise was fixed ecclesiastically by the Bull of Eugene IV. : "Haec omnia 
Sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, vid. rebus tamquam materia, verbis tamquam forma, 
ct persona ministri conferentis sacramentum cum intentione faciendi quod facit 
ecclesia. " 

i Q. 61. 



214 . HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. H, 

against the disease of sin ") ; (c) from a tendency in human 
action (ex studio actionis humanae ; man clings to the sensible, 
and it would be too hard to sever him entirely from it). To 
the objection, again, that the passion of Christ is surely sufficient 
in itself for salvation, the answer is given, that the Sacraments 
are not useless, " because tluy work in the power of Chris fs suffer- 
ings and t/ie passion of Christ is somehow ' applied to men by the 
Sacraments** (quia operantur in virtute passionis Christi, et 
passio Christi quodammodo applicatur hominibus per sacra- 
menta); (2) in the state of innocence man neither required the 
Sacraments as a remedy for sin (pro remedio peccati), nor for 
perfecting the soul (pro perfectione animae) ; (3) in the state of 
sin before Christ certain Sacraments were necessary " by which 
man might confess his faith concerning the future advent of the 
Saviour *' (quibus homo fidem suam protestaretur de futuro 
salvatoris adventu) ; (4) in the Christian state Sacraments are 
'necessary, " which represent those things which took place before 
in Christ" (quae significant ea quae praecesserunt in Christo). 
By this change in the Sacraments the unchangeableness of 
God is not affected, who, like a good father in a home, " gives 
different precepts to His family to suit different times "("pro 
temporum varietate diversa praecepta familiae suae proponit"). 
The fathers were redeemed " by faith in the Christ who was to 
come," we are redeemed " by faith in the Christ who has now 
been bom and has suffered " ; what they had to do with were 
Sacraments " that corresponded with grace that had to be fore- 
shadowed" (quae fuerunt congrua gratiae praefigurandae), what 
we have to do with are " Sacraments that correspond with grace 
that has to be shown as present*' (sacramenta congrua gratiae 
praesentialiter demonstrandae).^ 

To the question as to the effect of the Sacraments^ it is replied, 

1 Observe this word ; Thomas is a Mystic. 

9 Cf. on this also Q. 62, Art. 6 : ** Sacramenta veteris legis non contulerunt gratiam 
justiHcantem per se ipsa, t.<r., propria virtute, quia sic non fuisset necessaria passio 
Christi. . . . Manifestum est, quod a passione Christi, quae est causa humanse justifi- 
cationis convenienter derivaiur virtus justificativa ad sacramenta nova Ugis^ non 
autem ad sacramenta veteris legis. . . . Patet, quod sacramenta veteris legis non 
babebant in sealiquam virtutem qua operarentur ad conferendam gratiam justificantem» 
sed solum significabant fidem, per quam justificabantur." 

8Q. 62. 



CHAP. IL] scholastic DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. ^21$ 

that we must distinguish between "grace" and "character." 
The latter has already been treated above ; we have also learned 
to know the view of Thomas (p. 206) on the Sacraments as 
"instrumental causes" in addition to the "principal cause" 
(God). But Thomas has given more precise definitions as to the 
effect First, it is laid down (Art 2) that sacramental grace adds 
something beyond the "grace of virtues and gifts," namely, 
" a certain divine help for securing the end of the Sacrament " 
(quoddam divinum auxilium ad consequendum sacramenti 
finemy Second, the proposition "sacramenta signant et 
continent (causant) gratiam " (the Sacraments signify and contain 
[cause] grace) is more exactly explained (Art. 3). Third, it is 
shown that, as there is contained in the Sacraments (Art 4), and 
that, too, " in verbis et rebus " (in words and things), " a certain 
instrumental virtue for conveying grace (which is the effect 
of the Sacrament) that is proportioned to the instruments" 
(quaedam instrumentalis virtus ad inducendam gratiam, quae ' 
est sacramenti effectus, proportionata instrumento), this virtue 
originates " from the benediction of Christ and the application 
of it by the minister to sacramental use," and is to be traced 
back to the " principal agent" Fourth, the relation of sacra- 
mental grace to the passion of Christ is more precisely defined 

' '* Gratia virtutem et donorum sufHcienter perficit essentiam et potentias animse, 
quantum ad generalem ordinationem actuum animae, sed quantum ad quosdam effectus 
speciales, qui requiruntur in vita Christiana, requiritur sacramentalis gratia. — Per 
virtutes et dona excluduntur sufficienter vitia et peccata, quantum ad praesens et 
futurum, in quantum sell, impeditur homo per virtutes et dona a peccando ; 
sed quantum ad praeterita peccata, quae transeunt actu et permanent reatu, 
adhibetur homini remedium specialiter per sacramenta. — Ratio sacramentalis 
gratiae se habet ad gratiam communiter dictam, sicut ratio speciei ad genus, 
unde sicut non aequivoce dicitur animal communiter dictum et pro homine sump* 
tum, ita non aequivoce dicitur gratia communiter sumpta et gratia sacramentalis." 
The Protestant polemic had to come in here and show that the gratia virtutum et 
donorum as gratia fidei is the only grace, and that the sacramental grace in every 
sense is nothing but tlie manifestation of the gratia virtutum et donorum, or, say, of 
the general and only grace. Of this latter it is said (l.c.)f " gratia secundum se con- 
siderata perficit essentiam aniniae in quantum participat quandam similitudinem divini 
^ esse^ ; et sicut ab essentia animse fluunt ejus potentiae, ita a gratia fluunt quaedam 
perfectiones ad potentias animae, qu» dicuntur virtutes et dona, quibus potentiae per- 
ficiuntur in ordine ad suos actus." But also : '* Ordinantur autem sacramenta ad 
quosdam speciales effectus necessarios in vita Christiana." 



2l6 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CIIAP. II. 

(Art. s) : " The principal cause of grace is God Himself, in rela- 
tion to whom the humanity of Christ is, so to speak, a conjoined 
instrument (ad quern comparatur humanitas Christi sicut 
instrumentum conjunctum) (as e,g,^ the hand is a conjoined 
instrument), while the Sacrament is, as it were, a separate 
instrument (e.g.y like a stick). And thus it is necessary that 
saving virtue be derived for the Sacraments from the divinity of 
Christ through His humanity (et ideo oportet, quod virtus 
salutifera a divinitate Christi per ejus humanitatem in ipsa 
sacramenta derivetur). But sacramental grace appears to be 
appointed (ordinari) for two things especially, viz., for the 
removal of the defects of past sins, in so far as they pass away 
as acts (transeunt actu) and remain as guilt (remanent reatu), 
and again for the perfecting of the soul in those things which 
pertain to the worship of God according to the religion of the 
Christian life. But it is manifest from what has been said above, 
that Christ has wrought for us, chiefly by His passion, a deliver- 
ance from our sins that is not only meritorious and sufficient but 
also satisfactory (quod Christus liberavit nos a peccatis nostris, 
praicipue per suam passionem non solum suflficienter et meritorie 
sed etiam satisfactorie). In like manner also He initiated by 
His passion the ritual (ritum) of the Christian religion, yielding 
Himself up as an offering and sacrifice to God (offerensse ipsum 
oblationem et hostiam deo), as it is declared in Ephes. V. 
Whence it is manifest that the Sacraments of the Church have 
their efficacy principally from the passion of Christ, of which the 
virtue is in some way united (copulatur) to us through receiving 
the Sacraments, as a sign of which (in cujus signum) there 
flowed from Christ as He hung upon the Cross water and blood, 
of which the one relates to baptism, the other to the eucharist, 
which are the most potent (potissima) Sacraments."* 

1 I have quoted the whole passage, because it shows more clearly than any other 
that the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments is at bottom nothing but a reduplication 
of the redemption by Christ, or, to put it otherwise, a second structure above the 
first, by which the first is crushed to the ground. As grace was conceived of physi- 
cally ^ but this physical grace could not be directly connected with the death of Christ or 
derived from it^ it was necessary to associate with God the Redeemer , besides the 
instrumentum conjunctum (the God-man Jesus)^ still another instrumentum separatum 
(the Sacraments), If on the other hand the life and death of Chris>t can be so under- 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 21/ 

To the question as to the " causa sacramentorum '* (whether 
per auctoritatem or per ministerium) the reply is as follows : ' 
{i) as the "inner effect'* of the Sacraments is justification, it 
appears as if this effect could be produced only by God ; but by 
way of administering (" per modum ministri ") man also (the 
priest) can be the " instrumental cause " of the effect. Whether 
he is more or less good does not come into account here ; the 
effect of the Sacrament remains always the same, nay, even as 
regards the " annexa," the priest's prayers, it makes no difference 
what the character of the priest is ; for they are offered " ex parte 
•ecclesiae " (on the part of the Church), not on the part of an 
individual person. (2) God alone is the " institutor sacramen- 
torum," from whom alone also their ** virtus*' proceeds. Hence it 
follows : " those things which are done in the Sacraments by 
appointment of men (per homines instituta) are not necessary to 
the sacrament (de necessitate sac), but have to do with a certain 
solemn observance of it (pertinent ad quandam solemnitatem) 
. . , but those things which are necessary to the Sacraments are 
instituted by Christ Himself^ who is God and man. And 
although all things are not handed down in Scripture, yet the 
Church has these things from a well-known (familiari) tradition 
of the Apostles, as the Apostle says, i. Cor. XI. : The rest will I 
set in order when I come."* To the objection that the Apostles 
acted as God's representatives (" vicem dei ") on earth, and there- 
fore might also be institutors of Sacraments, it is replied, that 
they were certainly not allowed to set up another Church, and 
so also ** it was not lawful for them to institute other Sacraments, 
(for) it is by Sacraments that the Church of Christ is declared to 

stood that these themselves are seen to be the grace and the Sacrament y the reduplica- 
tion is useless. This is the evangelical Protestant point of view ; at least it ought to 
be. Of course it is then no longer possible to conceive of grace physically; for in 
that case the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments must again return, which is, how- 
ever, a pure invention of men, and has nothing to support it in the gospel history. 
This holds true notwithstanding the institution of the Supper by Jesus ; for where is 
it found written that the consecrated elements ''causant et continent gratiam ex 
•opere operato " ? 

1 Q. 64. 

* If the necessaria in sacramentis are all to be traced to Christ the institutor, then 
the Bible is not enough; tradition must be appealed to; but where is then the 
limit ? 



2l8 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

be formed (fabricata)." (3) It is laid down that the authority in 
the Sacraments belongs to Christ as God, but that He as man 
" had the power of the chief ministry or pre-eminence and works 
meritoriously and effectually (potestatem ministerii principalis 
habuit seu excellentiae et operatur meritorie et efficienter)." (4). 
It is shown that Christ could convey this " power of ministering "^ 
(not the " authority ") to other servants, viz,, " by giving them 
such fulness of grace that their merit would operate for rendering 
the Sacraments effectual (operaretur ad sacramentorum effectus),. 
that the Sacraments would be consecrated on the invocation of 
their names (ut ad invocationem nominorum ipsorum sanctifica- 
rentur sacramenta), and that they would themselves be able to 
institute Sacraments and, without the ritual of the Sacraments, 
be able to convey by their power alone the effect of the Sacra- 
ments (ut ipsi possent sacramenta instituere et sine ritu sacra- 
mentorum effectum sacramentorum conferre solo imperio)." But 
this " potestas excellentiae " He has not conveyed to the servants,, 
in order to avoid the " inconveniens," that is, that there might 
not be many heads in the Church; "if He had nevertheless 
communicated it, He would Himself have been the head in the 
principal sense, and they only in a secondary (ipse esset caput 
principaliter, alii vero secundario)." (5) It is shown that the 
Sacraments can be validly celebrated even by bad servants, as 
these act only instrumentally, and " the instrument does not 
work by its own form or virtue, but by the virtue of him by 
whom it is moved (non agit secundum propriam formam aut 
virtutem sed secundum virtutem ejus a quo movetur) ; " but of 
course (6) bad servants commit a mortal sin when they celebrate 
the Sacraments, though the sin does not extend to the receiver, 
"who does not communicate with the sin of the bad minister, 
but with the Church/' (7) The " intention " and " faith '' of the 
minister are treated (in Art. 8 and 9). The former he must 
necessarily have,' but not the latter : " as it is not required for 

1 More precisely: **Quando aliquid se habet ad multa, oportet quod per aliquid 
determinetur ad unum, si illud effici debeat. £a vero quae in sacramentis aguntur 
possunt diversimode agi, sicut ablutio aquae quae fit in baptismo potest ordinari ad 
munditiam corporalem et ad ludum et ad multa alia hujusmodi. Et idea oportet ut 
determinetur ad unum^ i.e,,ad sacra me ntalem effectum per intentionevt cUtluentis, Et 
hsec intentio exprimitur per verba quae in sacramentis dicuntur, puta cum didt : Ego- 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 219 

the perfection of the Sacrament that the minister have love (sit in 
caritate), but sinners also can dispense Sacraments, so his faith 
is not required for the perfection of the Sacrament, but an un- 
believer can dispense the true Sacrament, provided other things 
are present which are necessary to a Sacrament." Thus even 
heretics can dispense the Sacraments, that is, '* sacramentum," 
not " res sacramenti *' ; for the " power of administering sacra- 
ments pertains to spiritual character, which is indelible (he con- 
fers, but sins in conferring)." 

These doctrines of Thomas, from which a regard to faith 
(fides) is obviously lacking,^ and which altogether pass very 
rapidly over the question as to the conditions oi saving reception 
of the Sacraments, underwent afterwards great modification from 
the time of Scotus onwards.* In many points, moreover, the 
Thomist theses were novelties, and hence were not forthwith re- 
ceived. Thus Thomas was the first to assert the origination of 
all Sacraments by Christ Hugo'* and the Lombard were frank 
enough to trace several Sacraments, not to Him, but to the 
Apostles, or to the pre-Christian Era (marriage), and were satis- 
fied with saying that all Sacraments are now administered in the 
power of Christ (in potestate Christi). Only with Alexander of 
Hales begins a more exact investigation of the origin of the 
Sacraments. But till the time of Thomas we still find much 
uncertainty. It had been usual to fall back on the general 
assertion of their divine origin, or a " certain " institution by 
Christ was taught,* while in the case of the different Sacraments 

te baptizo in nomine," etc. An instrumentum inanimatum receives **1oco intentionis 
motum a quo movetur," but an instrumentum animatum must have the intentio, scil. 
•*faciendi quod facit Christut et ecclesia." But Thomas now places himself more 
decidedly on the side of the lax, /.<f., he disputes the position that a mentalis intentio 
is necessary. What is enough, rather, as the minister acts in loco totius ecclesiae, is 
the intention of the Church as actually expressed in the sacramental words which 
he speaks, ** nbi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri vel recipientis 
sacramentum.' 

1 Hence the 13th Art. of the Augustana; *• Damnant illos, qui docent, quod 
sacramenta ex opere operato justificent, nee docent fidem requiri in usu sacramen- 
torum, quae credit remilti peccata." 

' Yet Scotus himself stands very near Thomas in the doctrine of the Sacraments. 

9 On his want of logical thoroughness, see Hahn, p. 155. 

* See Hahn, p. 158 ff. 



220 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

very different hypotheses, attributable to embarrassment, were 
adopted. But there always continued to be some (on to the six- 
teenth century) who traced back individual Sacraments simply 
to apostolic institution.^ 

In addition to the problem as to how far the effect is bound to 
the Sacrament (see above), the chief questions in the period that 
followed were those as to the " minister sacramenti " and as to 
the conditions of saving reception. There was certainly agree- 
ment on the points, that there are Sacraments whose minister is 
not designated in the institution by Christ, and that we must 
distinguish between Sacraments which only a baptised Chris- 
tian, a priest, or a bishop can duly celebrate ; yet in making 
the application to each separate Sacrament, and in defining the 
relations of the minister and the receiver to the Sacrament, great 
controversies prevailed (is the priest who blesses the marriage, or 
are the parties to be married, the minister of the Sacrament of 
Marriage? In regard to the Eucharist, also, and other Sacra- 
ments, old ideas still continued to exercise their influence, and 
that not always in the case of declared heretics merely ; further, 
as to confirmation there was doubt whether the exclusive power 
of the bishops rested on divine or on ecclesiastical appointment, 
while in connection with this there arose again the whole of the 
old dispute as to whether presbyters and bishops were originally 
identical, etc., etc.). 

The controversy as to the conditions of saving reception 
penetrated more deeply ; for here it was necessary to show in 
what relation the two poles of the Romish view of Christianity 
were to be placed, w/tet/ier the factor of merit was to have 
predominance over the factor of sacrament or vice-versa. The 
development in Nominalist theology was such that merit 
always asserted its superiority more decidedly, and the con- 
ditions accordingly were always more laxly conceived of, while 
at the same time the view taken of the depreciated effects of 
the Sacraments became always more magical. From this as a 
starting-point (namely, the conditions), which Thomas had 
merely touched on, the whole doctrine of the Sacraments really 

' See Hahn, p. 163 f. By conveying the potestas excellentiae to the apostles, 
Christ empowered them to institute Sacraments. 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 221 

became a subject of controversy again, or received a fresh 
revision.' The chief points are the following : 

1. Alexander of Hales and Thomas had not indeed derived 
from all Sacraments a character, but they had asserted of all 
that they exercise an influence that is independent of the 
subjective condition of the receiver. But Scotus and those 
coming later denied this in the case of penance and extreme 
unction, teaching that these Sacraments remain without any 
effect if they are received without the requisite disposition. 

2. In the earlier period it was held that for the unworthy 
recipient the virtue of the Sacraments becomes deleterious in its 
effect. This the Nominalists denied. In the worthy disposition 
and in the character, they saw on the contrary, as already exist- 
ing, a p>ositive dispositio ad gratiam, and declared accordingly 
that in the case of the unworthy the saving effect ex opere 
operato is not realised,'- while the "wrath-effect" is not pro- 
duced by the Sacrament, but arises from the sin of the receiver^ 
and hence is not ex opere operato, but ex opere operante. 

3. That a " disposition " belongs to the saving reception was 
therefore the general opinion ; but as to why it was necessary 
there was difference of view. Some saw in the disposition, not 
the positive condition of sacramental grace, but only the 
conditio sine qua non, ix.y t/te disposition is not considered as 
worthiness ; the Sacraments, rather, of the new covenant, as 
distinguished from those of the old, in which the fides was 
requisite (hence opus operans), work ex opere operato.^ This 

1 Sec Hahn, p. 392 ff. 

^ What takes place, therefore, is only that the Sacrament is observed as an external 
adorning of the soul (the unbeliever receives a character, enjoys the body of the Lord, 
stands in an indissoluble marriage bond, etc.), while the gracious effect is not 
wrought. But this last at once follows subsequently, if the ** indisposition" gives 
way. 

s In its application to the Sacrament the expression "ex opere operato" itself 
passed through a history which is too extensive to follow out here ; see Schatzler, Die 
L. V. d. Wirks. d. Sacr. ex opere operato, x86o. The assertion is certainly false that 
the expression only denotes that the Sacraments are effectual on account of the work 
accomplished by Christ, or that Christ works in them, that is, it is an apologetic 
novelty of Mohler, or, say, of some theologians already in the sixteenth century. The 
leading thought of Scholasticism was rather this, that the Sacrament itself b the opus 
operatum, and starting from this point it proceeded to call the outer act opus 
opcratum, the inner disposition opus operans. 



522 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

implied the exclusion, not of "the necessity of the dispositio, 
but certainly of its causal significance. In entire contrast with 
this view stands the other, which, however, was represented 
only by a few, that the Sacraments can only mediate grace 
when inner contrition and faith are present, so that all saving 
grace is solely the result of penitent disposition and of faith; 
but these as inner motives (interiores motus) are wrought by 
God, so that on that ground we must not assume a justification 
•ex opere operante ; the Sacraments now declare this inner act 
of God, make man sure as to the reception of grace, and 
strengthen the belief that the reception transmits the eflfectual 
grace to the whole man and makes him the possessor of it 
This view comes very near the evangelical one of the sixteenth 
century ; but it differs from it in this, that the idea of grace is 
still always the Catholic, as participation in the divine nature, 
and that accordingly faith is really held as only something 
preliminary, that is, it is not yet seen that the ** motus fiducix 
in deum " (trustful impulse God-wards) is the form and the 
essence of grace itself. Further, it is to be observed that this 
view has been expressed clearly and plainly by no Schoolman.* 

* Hahn (p. 401 f.) names as representatives of this view Robert Pulleyn, William 
^f Auxerre, an<l John Wessel, and, as holding this view as regards at least the Sacra- 
ment of Penance, a large number of theologians, among whom the Lombard, 
Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura, and Henry of Ghent are mentioned. These men 
really taught that where there is true contritio, absolution comes directly from God, 
not thiough the Sacrament of Penance only, which in this case only declares. Karl 
Miiller (Der Umschwung in der I.ehre von der Busse wslhrend des 12. Jahrh. in the 
Abhandl. f. Weizsacker, 1892, p. 287 ff.) has shown that this view runs back to 
Abelard. He regards it as something new, and if applied to the common reigning 
practice, it would certainly have been something new. But there was no kind of 
change in this practice contemplated by it, and it was only a sign that theology again 
grappled with the question, and felt itself unable simply to justify theoreiically the 
conception that prevailed in practice of sacrament and priest. It went back, there- 
fore, at this point to ideas of the early Church, or to ideas that were Augustinian 
and more spiritual (MUller seems to me to overlook this, see further details below). 
Alexander of Hales (Summa IV., Q. 14, M. 2, Art. i, § 3) writes: "Duplex est 
paenitentia ; qua^dam qua? solummodo consistit in contritione, quaedam quae consistit 
in contritione, confessione, satisfactione ; utraijue est sacramentum, Sed primo mode 
sumpta non est sacramentum ecclesiai, sed secundo modo. Sacramentum psenitentise 
est signum et causa et quantum ad deletionem culpie et quantum ad deletionem 
poence. Contritio enim est signum et causa remissionis peaati et quantum ad cul^am 
4it quantum ad pcenam " (the adding of the remission of temporal penalties for ain 



CHAP. II.] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 223 

According to the third view, which constantly gained more 
adherents, and always came to be more laxly expressed, the 
saving grace is a product of the Sacrament and of contrite faith, 
so that the Sacrament in itself merely raises the soul above the 
point at which it is dead and plants a seed which develops to 
saving effect only by the co-operation of contrition and faith. 
Here first the questioji now came to be of importance as to 
what the nature was of this contrition and this faith, or as to 
what the state of soul must be which puts the receiver into the 
position for letting the sacramental grace attain to its full effect 
To begin with it was generally answered here, with Augustine, 
that the receiver must not "obicem contrariae cogitationis 
opponere " ( oppose a barrier of adverse thought.) But what is 
this "obex"* or this ** impedimentum " ? It was replied that 
the receiver must not receive the Sacrament "cum fictione" 
(insincerely). But when is he a hypocrite? The earlier 
theologians required a "bonus motus interior," that is, a really 
pious spirit that longs for grace, contrition, and faith, and so, 
since every "bonus motus" is in a certain way meritorious, 

takes place, however, only through the priestly sacrament). With this view of 
repentance, as is well known, the Reformation formed a connection. That fides and 
sacramentura are exclusively essential to each other in the case of all Sacraments was 
emphasised by Robert Pulleyn and Wessel (the former, Sentent. I., octo P. V., c. 13: 
'*quod fides facit, baptismus ostendit ; fides peccata delet, baptismus deleta docet, 
unde sacramentum dicitur." VI. 61 : '*Absolutio, quae peracta confessione super 
psenitentem a sacerdote 6t, sacramentum est, quoniam rei sncrae signum est. £t 
cujus sacrse rei est signum, nisi remissionis et absolutionis ? Nimirum confitentibus a 
sacerdote facta a peccatis absolutio remissionem peccatorum, quam antea peperit 
cordis contrilio, designat. A peccatis ergo presbyter solvit, non uiique quod peccata 
dimittcU,, sed quod dimissa sctcramenio pandat" The latter, de commun. sanct. [edit. 
Groning, 1614], p. 817: **£iTectus sacramentorum sunt secundum dispositionem 
suscipientis et secundum requisitam illi intentioni dispositionem. . . . Dispositio 
vero requisita huic sacramento, ut efficax fiat, est fames et sitis hujus vivifici cibi et 
potus. Unde quanto minus eum esurit et sitit, pro tanto minorem etiam effectum 
consetiuitur." 818 : ** Semper sacramenta fidei sunt instrumenta, tanto semper 
efiicacia, quanto est fides negotiosa"). But in view of these valuable sentences, we 
must remember, as has been remarked above, that to closer inspection a mysterious 
gratia is placed behind and above the fides, which lowers the 6des to a means. 

^ The Greek Scholasticism also knows of the obex. Antonius Melissa quotes in 
the Loci Comm. (Migne, Bd. 136, col. 823), sermo 16, the saying of a certain 
Theotimus : ioiK€¥ if ifiaprla irapa/rcuXi'/iari, KtaXvoyri 7-J)i» f 0yotay tov 6eov iv ijfuy 
yevi(T0ai. 



224 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

certain merits. The " barrier " is here therefore the lack of such 
a positive good disposition. So it was taught by the Lombard^ 
Alexander, Thomas,^ and a large number of theologians, and 
they further laid it down that, as all merit is rewarded, the 
reception of the Sacrament results in a twofold grace, namely 
(i) ex opere operato, (2) but also ex opere operante; the latter 
is different from the sacramental grace, but is always added to 
it (ex merito, on account of the disposition, and greater or less, 
according to the measure of the disposition). Here already, 
then, merit is introduced in a hazardous way. Yet the later 
theologians (among the earlier, Albertus) required only the 
absence of an undevout disposition ; what is held by them as a 
barrier is simply the presence of a " motus contrarius malus/' ix^ 
contempt of the Sacrament, positive unbelief, or an unforgiven 
mortal sin.^ They said that the dignity of the New Testament 
Sacraments consists just in this, that they presuppose no positive 
disposition, while such disposition is to be presupposed in the 
case of all other grace. Hence Scotus defines : " for the first 
reception of grace (the non-sacramental) there is required some 
kind of merit (aliquis modus meritorius) de congruo ; but for the 
second (the sacramental) nothing is required save a reception 
of baptism that is voluntary and without insincerity (sine 
fictione), />., with the intention of receiving what the Church 
confers, and without mortal sin in act or will (sine actu vel 
voluntate peccati mortaiis), so that in the first there is required 
some intrinsic work in some way accepted as meritum 
de congruo, in the second there is only required an external work 
(opus exterius), with putting away of inner hindrance (cum 
amotione interioris impedimenti)." One sees that here the 
doctrine of the Sacraments is already quite drawn into the 
(Pelagian) doctrine of justification, and subordinated to it, while 
apparently the power of the Sacrament is increased, seeing that 
it is to be held as effectual even where a tabula rasa exists. 

1 In Sentent IV., Dist. 4, Q. 3, Art. 2 : ** Indispositus reputatur et qui non credi 
et qui indevotus accedit ... in sacramentis prxcipue fides operator . . . ideo 
dcfectus fidei specialius pertinet ad fictionem." 

' Scotus, in Sent. IV., Dist. i. Q. 6: ** Sacraraentum ex virtute operis operati 
confert gratiam, ita quod non requiritur ibi bonus motus interior qui mereatur 
gratiam, sed sufficit quod suscipiens non ponat obicem." 



CHAP. IL] SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 22$ 

Yet with the increased power there contrasts the really small 
saving effect, which passes, rather, into the ** acceptance of the 
merits of man." Between these two views there was still a 
third, which certainly stands quite near the last mentioned, 
frequently coalesced with it, and was afterwards to become the 
predominant one ; it is neither satisfied with the absence of the 
" malus motus," nor does it require the " bonus motus," but it 
demands that a '* certain " sorrow shall precede the reception of 
the Sacrament, which does not require to spring from the 
highest motives, but may arise from lower, e,g,^ from fear of 
punishment or something similar. This ** sorrow " is described 
as attrition and it is said of it that, if there is earnest striving, 
the Sacrament can raise it to contritio. But others now went 
still further and taught titat the Sacrament changes attritio into 
contritio ex opere operato. According to this extremely widely 
diffused view, the man can be saved who lets himself stand in 
dread of hell, even though otherwise all inner connection with 
the Christian religion is wanting to him ; he must only 
assiduously use the Sacrament of Penance, in the opinion that it 
can protect him against hell. Yet even this "opinion" does 
not need to be a sure faith ; he may only hold the effect of the 
Sacrament as not impossible ; " attrition, when the Sacrament 
is added, is made sufficient by the power of the keys " (attritio 
superveniente sacramento virtute clavium efficitur sufficiens).* 

A quite magical view of the Sacraments here competes in a 
pernicious way with that doctrine of " merit," according to 

1 Scolus was the first to direct his attention to this very correctly observed charac- 
ter of the commoner type of humanity, and began to use it in the way indicated for 
the doctrine of salvation ; see Hahn, p. 413 f. 

s Or : *' Attritus accedit ad confessionem, ex quo ibi fit contritus, unde fugatur 
ficiio. £t sic non habet dubium, quia et sacramentum suscipit et eifectum ejus scil. 
lemissionem peccatorum." Numerous passages in Hahn, l.c. From this point of 
view, indeed, the mere purpose to partake of the Sacrament, or the partaking per se, 
might come to be regarded as something initially meritorious, and this step was really 
already taken from the time of the Lombard, the view becoming quite widely preva- 
lent. Nay, as if the conscience and the plain understanding reacted against the 
sacramental magic, the Lombard declares that the humiliatio before the sensible 
materials in the Sacrament establishes merit (Sentent. IV., Dist. i C): "propter 
humiliationem quidem, ut dum homo sensibilibus rebus, quae natura infra ipsum sunt, 
ex praecepto creatoris se reverendo subicit, ex hac humilitate et obedientia deo magis 
placeat et apud eum mereatur." 



226 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

which God of His good pleasure (per acceptationem) takes as 
complete what is only a beginning, and indeed is not even a 
beginning, since the motives of those " meritorious " acts may 
be religiously neutral. In connection with the doctrine of 
justification we shall return to this worst point, which domin- 
ated the whole practical and theoretical system of Catholicism 
at the beginning of the Reformation period.^ But certainly it 
is clear here already, that to hush up rather than to give 
comfort was the effect of a doctrine of the Sacraments having 
this form and issue. This doctrine was originally framed 
on the exalted idea of the *• participatio divinae naturae," and 
it still continues to betray its basis in the first stages of its 
construction. But it ends in confirming the man of common 
spirit in his low-type morality and feeble piety. The earnest 
Catholic may not apply these final conclusions to himself; he 
may confine himself to the original thesis, which is not for- 
bidden to him, but for the careless, the Church has prepared a 
broad road and opened a wide gate. In a relative way it may 
work much good with this ; for its system is derived from 
listening to life ; it gives pedagogic direction on the question as 
to how one who is not quite thoughtless, who is not perfectly 
stolid, who is not entirely sunk in earthly enjoyment, can be 
aided, and introduced into a better society, with better modes 
of life. But as soon as we consider that it is the Christian 
religion we have to do with here, that religion of earnest spirit 
and comforting power, this structure of opus operatum, attritio 
and meritum is seen to be a mockery of all that is sacred.^ 

1 Apol. Confess. Aug. 13: '* Hie damnamus totum populum scholasticonim 
doctorum, qui docent, quod sacramenta non ponenti obicem conferant gratiam ex 
opere operato sine bono motu utentis. Haec simpliciter judaica opinio est sentire 
quod per ceremoniam justificemur, sine bono motu cordis, hoc est, sine 6de. £t 
tamen haec impia et perniciosa opinio magna auctoritate docetur in toto regno 
pontificio." 

2 On Duns Scotus' doctrine of the Sacraments see Werner, Scotus (1881), 
pp. 462-496 ; on the doctrine of Post-Scoti^t Scholasticism see the same author, Die 
Nachscotislische Scholastik (1883), p. 380 ff. As specially important characteristics 
of the Scotist doctrine of the Sacraments note the following : (1) the rejection of the 
inner necessity of the Sacraments, since God can grant the saving grace even without 
the employment of these outward signs (all the more firmly is the outer necessity 
maintained, on the ground of the positive divine appointment) ; (2) the rejection of 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: BAPTISM, 22/ 

The individual Sacraments, (i) Baptisms This Sacrament* 
is the medicine for the consequences of the Fall, and lays the 
basis of the new life ; it has therefore a negative and a positive 
effect.^ The former, in which the " ^race " already appears as 
" most perfect,* relates to original sin. In so far as this consists 
in guilt, penalty, and concupiscence, baptism abolishes all these 
with the entire sin ; />., the guilt (guilt of original sin and of 
the previously committed sinful deeds without exception)* is 

an influence of a naturally necessary kind in the media of sacramental grace ; (3) the 
strong emphasising of the Sacraments as notse ecclesiae ; (4) the assertion that since 
the Fall there have been Sacramento effectual ex opere operato ; (5) the rejection of 
the virtus supernatural is in the Sacraments ; (6) the rejection of the position, that the 
intellect is the vehicle of the sacramental character ; (7) the assertion that only from 
the positive appointment of God is it to be concluded that baptism cannot be re> 
peated ; (8) the assertion, that the reatus culpae after the act of sin is no reatio 
realis, f.^., that there remains nothing in the soul of the effect of sin, which would 
again be sin ; for the habitus vitiosus is not sin, seeing that it remains even in the 
justified ; hence there stands nothing that is a link between the sinful act and the 
obligatio ad poenam ; the latter, therefore, is only a relatio rationis of the divine 
intellect or will, which has its ground in the *• ordering will " of God ; in accordance 
with this the view of the Sacrament of Penance is formed. Occam emptied the 
Sacraments of every kind of inner and speculative import ; they have simply an im- 
portance because God has so ordained them ; but we do not know why. Here also 
the position of things was such that as soon as the authority of the Church dis- 
appeared, there was necessarily a falling away, not only of the doctrine of the 
Sacraments in every sense — that was no misfortune — but also of every doctrine of 
grace ; for no one had taken the precaution to secure that the latter should be able 
to exist independently of the Sacraments. 

1 See the detailed exposition in Thomas, P. III., Q. 66-71. Schwane, pp. 605- 
622. 

^ According to the general view (something similar already in Ignatius of Antioch) 
Christ, at His own baptism, imparted to the water consecration and power. 
Hence the water needs no special consecration, as the material does in the other 
Sacraments. 

' According to the Scholastic view, which, however, was not shared by all, an 
abolition of sin is in itself possible without infusion of saving grace (so Thomas). 

^ Gabriel Biel (according to Hahn, p. 334) : '< licet gratia bapiismalis sit 
incipientium et ita imperfecta quantum ad habilitandum ad bonum, tamen quantum 
ad liberandum a malo habet vim grati^e perfectissimse . . . restituit perfectam inno- 



centiam." 



3 On the other hand : **baptismus non est institutus ad delendum omnia peccata 
futura, sed tamen praeterita et praesentia." Hence the rule: '*baptismus delet 
quidquid invenit." This reluctance to relate the sin-cancelling grace of baptism to 
the future, had originally sprung from regard for the interests of human freedom and 
for the serious nature of Christian morality. But in the Scholastic period what is 
.aimed at mainly is to protect the Church Sacrament of Penance. 



228 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

blotted out, the penalty remitted (and that means the eternal 
penalty totally, the temporal penalty likewise, so far as it 
consists in poenae determinatae ; but so far as it finds expression 
in the penal evils of the earthly life, it remains), and the 
concupiscence is controlled. The last point is new, as only in 
Scholasticism is a clear distinction drawn between sinful and 
innocent concupiscence. The meaning is this, that through sin 
sinful concupiscence has come into existence as disorder of the 
lower impulses, or as dominion of these over the higher im- 
pulses and over the province of human action, whereby a fomes 
peccati (slumbering fire of sin), ever continuing, and working 
with a certain necessity, has developed itself Baptism, now, 
has the effect of so rectifying the disorder of the passions, and 
moderating the " fomes peccati,*' that man is now in a position 
for resisting, or for keeping within appointed limits, the con- 
cupiscence, which is involved in his earthly nature, and is 
therefore in itself innocent. This view of the natural life, which 
is not a religious one, will occupy us again in the next section 
(under C). Here it is enough to note that, in order to give ex- 
pression to the absoluteness of the negative baptismal influence 
as an effectual one, the conception of an innocent concupiscence 
was admitted.' The positive effect of baptism is summed up 
under the term, ** sacramentum regenerationis." But while here 

1 Lombard, Sentent. II., Dist. 32, A. B. : ** Licet remancat concupiscentia post 
baptismum, non tamen dorainatur et regnat sicut ante, immo per gratiam baptismi 
mitigatur et minuitur, ut post dominari non valeat, nisi quis reddat vires hosti eundo 
post concupiscentias. Nee post baptismum remanet ad reatum, quia non imputatur 
in peccatum, sed tantum pcena peccati est, ante baptismum vero poena est et 
culpa. . . . Per gratiam baptismi vitiumconcupiscentisedebilitaturatqueextenuator, 
ita ut jam non regnet, nisi consensu reddantur ei vires, et quia reatus ipsius solviiur." 
Thomas defines the fomes (after the Fall) in the 27 Q., P. III., as **rebellio 
inferiorum virium ad rationem," or as *'inordinata concupiscentia sensibilis 
appetitus " ; but by grace it is weakened and loses the reatus. What was still 
thought of even then (see Augustine) was almost exclusively the sexual impulse and 
generation. Therefore there can be no thought of removing the concupiscence, and 
Thomas asserts: **baptismus non aufert actu infectionem, prout afficit personam, 
quod patet ex hoc, quod baptizatus per actum naturse originale transmittit in prolem." 
He says also, P. II., I, Q. 74, Art. 3 : ** Transit peccatum originale reatu et remanet 
actu (this is not so strongly expressed afterwards). Sed talis corruptio fomitis non 
impedit, quin homo rationabili voluntate possit reprimere singulos motus inordinatos 
sensualitatis, si prsesentiat, puta divertendo cogitationem ad alia." 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : BAPTISM. 229 

there was in general no occasion to pass beyond the old 
ecclesiastical conception (even the special connection of baptism 
with faith is still always emphasised), yet misgivings arose on 
two points. Is the positive grace in baptism " perfectissima," 
and do the children receive this grace as perfectly as baptised 
adults ? Although in general it was declared that baptism is 
the sacrament of justification, and that through it the baptised 
person receives the gratia operans and cooperans, provided he 
does not already possess it (in which case there is only an 
increasing), yet, from the time of Nominalism especially, 
baptism was in point of fact held to be only the sacrament of 
initiation for justification.^ Hence there was an increased 
willingness to assume in the case of children the perfect appli- 
cation of baptismal grace,^ while it was held at an earlier period, 
that to children there is perfectly communicated only purifica- 
tion from original sin, the positive grace being only infused into 
them afterwards at successive times.^ As regards the faith of 
children, there was no fixed opinion ; the majority seem to have 
held that the faith of the Church (or of the sponsors) intervenes 
here vicariously, and that thereby the saving effect is made 
possible.* Thus baptism only lays the foundation for the 
process of justification, or it implants it " in habitu,'* but not " in 
actu " (that Mary was thought of as an exception to this was a 
matter of course on the Catholic view ; for to her nothing could 



^ See note 4 on p. 227. 

3 As a rule, no doubt, with the addition, that the habitus ligatus est propter 
pueritiam, but that as truly is it perfectly imparted as the sleeping man is a living 
man. So already Thomas. At the Council of Vienna in 131 1, the view was declared 
the sententia probabilior and sanctioned, that baptism is the cause in the case of 
parvuli, both of the remissio culpse and of the coUatio gratise (quoad habitum, etsi 
non pro illo tempore quoad usum), 2'.^., that it communicates the gratia inforroans et 
virtutes (Mansi XXV., p. 411). 

3 Lombardus, IV., Dist. 4 H. : " de adultis, qui digne recipiunt sacramentum, non 
ambigitur quin gratiam operantem et cooperantem perceperint . . . de parvulis vero, 
qui nondum ratione utuntur, quaestio est, an in baptismo receperint gratiam qua ad 
majorem venientes setatem possent velle et operari bonum ? Videtur, quod non 
receperint, quia gratia ilia caritas est et fides, quae voluntatera prseparat et adjuvat. 
Sed quis dixerit, eos acceplsse fidem et caritatem ! " 

4 Following Augustine, Thomas III., Q. 68, Art. 9 : the parvuli sunt in utero 
matris ecclesise and are thus nourished. 



230 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

be given by baptism which she had not already possessed 
before baptism).^ 

Baptism is absolutely necessary (baptism with blood a sub- 
stitute), conveys a character, cannot be repeated, is valid when 
it is performed with water (materia) and with the words of 
institution (forma),^ and is regularly dispensed by the priest 
Yet in an emergency a deacon, and even a layman, can baptise. 
The considerations regarding the sacramentalia which accom- 
panied baptism do not belong to the history of dogma ;* just as 
little do the secondary consequences of baptism, as, e,g.^ spiritual 
affinity, etc. 

As the Church had to contend, especially from the thirteenth 
century onwards, against sects and schools who, on different 
grounds (as a rule out of opposition to the prevailing sacra- 
mental system, here and there also from opposition to the 
sacramental system in general), disputed the rightfulness of 
infant baptism, or who denied the necessity of baptism al- 
together, an apologetic, polemical discussion of the Sacrament 
of Baptism was necessary. Yet there was never nearly so much 
fulness of statement here as in the account given of the 
Sacrament of the Eucharist* 

2. Confirmation? This Sacrament obtained its independent 
existence simply through Western practice, inasmuch as only 
the bishop® could administer it. Hence it naturally resulted, 
that it became dissociated from baptism, which, however, forms 
its presupposition,^ and with which it shares the quality, that it 
conveys a character, and therefore cannot be repeated. The 

1 Here there were great controversies, which will be briefly dealt with afterwards. 

a Thomas, P. HI., Q. 66, Art. 6, declares (against Hugo) that baptism in the 
name of Christ alone is invalid ; yet the Apostles allowed themselves such 
baptism. 

3 See Schanz, Die Wirksamkeit der Sacramentalien, Tiib, Theol. Quartalschr. 
1 886, Part. 4. 

* See the polemic against the Catharists (Moneta), Petrobrusiani, etc. 

5 Thomas, P. HI., Q. 72, Schwane, pp. 622-627. 

« Because only the Apostles had the power to impart the Holy Spirit by laying on 
of hands. 

7 Not only its presupposition, ** sed est majoris necessitatis," Thomas, l.c. 
Art. 12. With regard to the presupposition it is said in Art. 6: '*si aliquis non 
baptizatus confirmaretur, nihil reciperet" 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: CONFIRMATION. 23I 

material is the Chrisma consecrated by the bishop, the form the 
sacramental words : " consigno te, etc" The effect, which, of 
course, as additional to that of baptism, either cannot be 
definitely expressed, or restricts the importance of the baptismal 
communication of grace, is power (robur) for growth, strength 
for conflict with enemies of the faith (military), the gifts of the 
Holy Spirit, or even — as a portion of the process of justification 
— the gratia gratum faciens (grace that renders well-pleasing).' 
Doubts about this Sacrament, which, according to Thomas, 



1 *' Robur," or " potestas ad pugnam spiritalem," is the chief conception ; baptism 
distinguishes believers from unbelievers, confirmation the newly-born from the 
mature. At the same time Thomas (Art. 7) sought to introduce confirmation into 
the process of justification, in which, certainly, he had poor enough success: "datur 
baptisato spiritus sanctus ad robur . . . missio seu datio i^piritus s. non est nisi cum 
gratia gratum faciente. Unde manifestum est, quod gratia gratum faciens confertur 
in hoc Sacramento . . . gratise gratum fadentis primus effectus est remissio culpse, 
habet tamen et alios effectus quia sufficit ad hoc quod promoveat hominem per omnes 
gradus usque in vitam aeternam . . . et ideo gratia gratum faciens non solum datur 
ad remissionem culpse, sed etiam ad augmentum et firmamentum justitise, et sic 
confertur in hoc sacramento." But any number of Sacraments might then be forced 
in ! See the summing up of the chief deliverances on the Sacrament by Eugene IV. 
(Lc, p. 1055), where it is said of the effect: *' datur S. S. ad robur, ut vid. 
Christian us audacter Christi confiteaiur nomen." The Pope will have it, besides, 
that per apostolicse sedis dispensationem even ordinary priests have celebrated the 
Sacrament, yet only with oil which a bishop had consecrated. This continued after- 
wards to be the Catholic view, or, say, practice. This special linking of confirmation 
to the power of the Pope goes back to Thomas. He framed the theory, fraught with 
large consequences, that the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of ordination relate to 
the true body of Christ, the others to the mystical (the Church). Hence in the 
celebration of the latter five Sacraments there is to be taken into account, besides the 
potestas ministerii in general, the power of jurisdiction (in the case of one in a higher, 
in the case of another in a lower degree) belonging to the Church, that is, the Pope. 
In consequence of this he has the right, in the case of confirmation, to depute ordinary 
priests ; in Sentent. IV., Dist. 7, Q. 3, A. I : " Sciendum est, quod cum episcopatus 
non addat aliquid supra sacerdotium per relationem ad corpus domini verum, sed 
solum per relationem ad corpus mysticum, papa per hoc quod est episcoporum 
summus non dicitur habere plenitudinem potestatis per relationem ad corpus domini 
verum, sed per relationem ad corpus mysticum. Et quia gratia sacramentalis 
descendit in corpus mysticum a capite, ideo omnis operatio in corpus mysticum sacra- 
mentalis, per quam gratia datur, dependet ab operatione sacramentali super corpus 
domini verum, et ideo solus sacerdos potest absolvere in loco paenitentiali et baptizare 
ex officio. Et ideo dicendum, quod promovere ad illas perfectione.<, quae non 
respiciunt corpus domini verum, sed solum corpus mysticum, potest a papa qui habet 
plenitudinem pontificialis potestatis committi sacerdoti." 



232 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

" etiam a non jejunis dari vel accipi potest " ^ (can be given or 
received even by those not fasting), never disappeared ; Wyclif 
again gave emphatic expression to them ; for a reliable proof 
from tradition could not be obtained.* In the last resort 
Thomas is unable otherwise to defend the " conveniens " in the 
ritual than by the sentence:^ " it must be firmly held that the 
ordinances of the Church are directed according to the wisdom 
of Christ And for this reason it ought to be certain that the 
ritual which the Church observes in this and in other Sacraments 
is fitting" (firmiter tenendum est, quod ordinationes ecclesiae 
dirigantur secundum sapientiam Christi. Et propter hoc 
certum esse debet, ritus quod ecclesia observat n hoc et in aliis 
sacramentis esse convenientes). If we assume, not the dog- 
matic, but the practical pedagogic point of view, we cannot 
deny the serviceableness of this observance, especially when 
taken along with infant baptism, both as regards the plebs 
Christiana, and as regards the bishop, who in this way comes 
close to every member of his diocese.* 

3. The Eucharist^ At the beginning of the thirteenth 
century, after the conflicts in the eleventh, and many uncer- 
tainties in the twelfth, the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
together with what was derived from it, or coheres with it, 
was substantially settled. The Lateran Council (see above, 
p. S3) of the year 12 15 had brought the development to a con- 
clusion, and had given to the Sacrament the highest conceivable 
place, as was shown by the deliverance regarding it being 
introduced into the Symbol.^ But the " heretical " opposition 
had made the deliverance necessary. This opposition never 

1 Thomas, I.e., Art. 12. 

^ A passage from Pseudo-Isidore (ep. episc. Melchiadis) played an important part, 
as also the Pseudo-Dionysius. 
3 Thomas, I.e. 

* Its institution by Christ, first asserted by Albertus, even Thomas has only 
** proved " by declaring that Christ instituted the Sacrament, John XVI. 7, 
**promittendo." 

5 Thomas, P. III., Q. 73-83; Schwane, pp. 628-661 ; Article, "Transubstantia- 
tion," by Steilz-Hauek, Real-Encyclopadie, vol. 15*, pp. 803 ff., 815 ff. (a very 
thorough-going account). 

• Baur points out very correctly (Vorles, II., p. 475) that Thomas tries to prove 
that Christianity without transubstantiation is not the absolute religion. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : EUCHARIST. 233 

became silent ; nay, in the circles of the Church theology itself, 
there were set forth in later times views of transubstantiation, 
that, strictly speaking, had the effect of cancelling it. 

Here, also, it was Thomas whose view of the Sacrament be- 
came classic in Catholicism. The modifications which Nomin- 
alism allowed itself to adopt disappeared ; the doctrine of 
Thomas remained. Thomas put an end to the uncertainties 
still betrayed by the Lombard at some points,^ and he applied 
in perfected form to the Sacrament the dialectic mode of treat- 
ment which had once occasioned so much offence. He could 
dispose of the Sacrament with confidence, for he was a Realist, 
and Duns Scotus could do so likewise (in some respects in a 
still more perfect form), because he also readily adopted a 
realistic theory of knowledge. But this confidence thereafter 
received a check ; for it is only in a forced way, if at all, that the 
Nominalist mode of thought can come to terms with tran- 
substantiation. It must either let it drop, or declare it an in- 
tensified miracle, by which two impossible things become 
actual. 

In the Sacrament of the Supper and the doctrine regarding 
it, the Church gave expression^ to everything that it highly prized 
— its dogma, its mystical relation to Christ, the fellowship of 
believers, the priest, the sacrifice, the miraculous power which 
•God had given to His Church, the satisfaction of the sensuous 

1 Only the fact of the conversio was a certainty for the Lombard, not the modus ; 

see Sentent. IV., Dist. 1 1 A.: ** Si quaeritur, qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis 

an substantialis vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio ; formalem tamen non esse 

•cog^osco, quia species rerum quae ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. 

Qutbusdam videtur esse substantialis, dicentibus sic substantiam converti in sub- 

-stantiam, ut hsec essentialiter Bat ilia." Yet that is at bottom the opinion of the 

Lombard also, for he unequivocally teaches (Dist. 12 A.) that after the transformation 

the accidents are ** sine subjecto." In the doctrine of the Mass the Lombard had not 

yet reached the height of Realism; ideas of the ancient Church still exercised tlieir 

influence on him ; see Sentent. IV., Dist. 12 F. : ** Quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos 

proprie dicatur sacriflcium vel immolatio, et si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel 

tantum immolatus sit ? Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur 

A sacerdote vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repraesentatio sacriflcii 

veri et sanctse immolationis bkXiXsR in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus est in 

cruce, ibique immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, 

•quia in sacramento recordation fit illius quod factum est semel." 



234 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

impulse in piety, etc., only not t/te faith which seeks for certainty 
and to which certainty is given. This appears very plainly from 
the description of the effects of the Eucharist as a Sacrament and 
as a sacrifice. The Sacrament was universally reverenced as the 
chiefest Sacrament, the sun among the Sacraments, etc., because 
here res and sacramentum coincide (the matter becomes itself 
Christ), because the incarnation and the death on the Cross are 
represented as operative in it, or are repeated in it, and because 
it embraces the past, the present, and the future. Yet the 
effects, which are summed up under the term nourishment of the 
spiritual life of the soul, and are detailed as incorporation into 
Christ, incorporation into the Church, communion of the mem- 
bers with each other, forgiveness of venial sins, perseverance in 
faith, strengthening of human weakness, refreshment, foretaste 
and fore-celebration of the heavenly blessedness, anticipation of 
eternal fellowship with God, etc., do not attain to the effect of 
the Sacrament of Penance. Just as little is specific importance 
attached to the Eucharist as a sacrifice ; under this term, indeed^ 
personal merit rather is strongly asserted. In the sacrifice of 
the Mass one testifies his obedience to God ; like every sacrifice 
it is a performance which can claim a reward. Thus all effects 
here are at the same time dependent on the receiver. These 
effects appear to be estimated most highly ; the sacrifice of the 
Mass, indeed, is a constant repetition of the death on the Cross; 
but this constant repetition has respect only to daily sins, to 
penal evils and bodily need. It extends, no doubt, in its effect^ 
beyond the earthly life — in practice, the bearing of the sacrifice 
of the Mass on the penalties in purgatory was almost its most 
important bearing — yet there are also other means, which are 
really not less effectual than the Masses.' 

1 On the effect of the Eucharist, see Thomas, Q. 79. In the first Art. he shows- 
that it conveys grace; in the second that it gives aid for eternal life; in the third that 
it does not blot out mortal sins, seeing that it is given to the spiritually alive, though 
under certain circumstances it removes an unconscious mortal sin ; in the fourth that 
it blots out the peccata venalia ; in the fifth that it does not cancel the penalty of sin 
entirely, but only '* secundum quantitatem devotionis sumentium"; in the sixth that 
it guards men against future transgressions ; in the seventh that as a Sacrament it 
profits only the receivers, but as a sacrificium the spectators also : **In quantum in- 
hoc Sacramento reprsesentatur passio Christi, qua Christus obtulit se hostiam dec,. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : EUCHARIST. 23? 

The materia of the Sacrament is wheaten ^ bread and wine.* 
The appropriateness of these, and, in particular, of this double 
form, is dealt with very minutely. The very ancient symbolic 
idea of the many grains which become one bread also reappears 
in the Schoolmen.^ The forma is the words of consecration,, 
which are spoken in the name of Christ (not in the name of the 
minister).* In connection therewith, Bonaventura explains the 
" hoc " as denoting the bread, Thomas as denoting the accidents 
of the bread (" hoc sub his specibus contentum," ue.^ that which 
is here presented is not bread, but my body). But the forma is 
not only an appeal to God (Bonaventura, Duns) that He will ac- 
complish the transubstantiation, but an effectual power, as soon 
as the priest has the intention to work the mystery.* 

But the diflficult question was now this, How is the transubstan- 
tiation to be thought of ? ® Here there was, first, a rejection 
already by the Lombard of the idea of a new-creation of the 
body of Christ, for Christ's body already exists; but, second, the 
opinion was also rejected by him that Christ makes the bread 
and wine into His body, so that they become the Sacrament, 
whether by assumptio or by consubstantiality; there must be 
believed in rather a conversio of such a kind that the substances 

habet rationem sacriiicii, in quantum vero in hoc sacramento traditur invisibilis gratia 
sub visibili specie, habet rationemsacramenii . . . hoc sacrificium, quod est memorial& 
dominicse passionis, non habet effectum nisi in illis qui conjunguntur huic sacramento 
per fidem et caritatem. Unde et in Canone Missae non oratur pro his qui sunt extra 
ecclesiam ; illis tamen prodest plus vel minus secundum modum devotionis eorum. " 
So the Mass profits only those who already have fides and caritas, as securing for thenk 
an augmentum fidei, or a remission of penalty, and always according to the measure 
of their desert. The Eucharist is the Sacrament and sacrifice which accompanies the 
process of justification, so far as that process has already begun and is disturbed by 
no mortal sin, and which carries the process to its higher stages. 

J Controversy with the Greeks about leavened bread. 

2 Mixing with water is the rule. 
• 3 Thomas, Q. 74, Art. 1. 

« Q. 78, Art. I. 

» Thomas, in Sentent. IV., Dist. 8, Q. 2, Art. 3 : ** In verbii prsedictis sicut et in 
aliis formis sacramentorum est aliqua virtus a deo, sed hasec virtus non est qualitas 
habens esse completum in natura . . . sed habet esse incompletum, sicut virtus 
quae est in instrumento ex intentione principalis agentis." 

' There was in possession no traditional doctrine whatever on this point ; indeed, 
a proof for the fact itself of transubstantiation could not be derived from earlier times. 
Special appeal was made to Pseudo-Ambrosius. 



2^6 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

of the elements pass into the substances of the body of Christ, 
while the accidents remain behind without a subject.^ What 
happens to the substance of the elements, whether it breaks up 
and is destroyed, the Lombard declared that he did not know. 
Alexander of Hales distinctly rejects consubstantiality and de- 
struction, and speaks of a "passing over." But he at once adds, 
that after the change, the w/to/e Christ is present, inasmuch as 
the human soul and the deity of Christ always are concomi- 
tantly (per concomitantiam) where His flesh is. The continu- 
ance of the accidents without a subject he pronounced a 
miracle.* Bonaventura attached weight to the conversio taking 
place both as regards the materia and the forma of the bread 
(it would otherwise be imperfect) ; yet we must not understand 
by the former the materia prima (matter as the potency [potentia] 
of all material substances). ^ With regard to the first 
Eucharist celebration — the treatment of which is the hardest 
crux of the whole theory — it was universally held, indeed, that 
Christ partook of Himself in eating (as an example, and with a 
view to the enjoyment of love, not with a view to being perfected), 
but while Hales thought that Christ partook then already of His 
glorified body, Bonaventura taught (Thomas following him) that 
Christ partook of His mortal body, which, however, as Euchar- 
istic was already present " impassibiliter " (in impassible form). 
All of them thought of the parallels in creation and incarnation, 
and sought to explain the mystery from these. Thomas now 
submitted to a final treatment the accidents, which, as the sub- 
ject is wanting to them after the conversio, are maintained in 
existence by God as the first cause (causa prima).* But at the 

1 Sentent. IV., Dist. 12 A. : **Si vero quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent, 
scil. de speciebus et de sapore et pondere, in quo subjecto fundantur, potius mihi 
videtur fatendum existere sine subjecto, quam esse in subjecto, quia ibi non est 
substantia nisi corporis et sanguinis dominici, quae non afHcitur illis accidentibus. 
Non enim corpus Christi talem in se habet formam, sed qualis in judicio apparebit. 
Remanent ergo ilia accidentia per se subsistentia ad mysterii ritum, ad gustus fideique 
suffragium, quibus corpus Christi habens formam et naturam suam tegitur." 

2 Summa IV., Q. 38, 40. 

' It is an opinion peculiar to Bonaventura, that the substance of the bread would 
return if the accidents were destroyed. 

* Thomas III., Q. 77. In tlie first Article the question is discussed: " Utrum 
accidentia quae remanent, sint sine subjecto"; it is answered in the affirmative, since 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: EUCHARIST. 237 

same time, following Bonaventura, he laid the foundation for an 
extremely complicated doctrine of the form of all matter, which 
was afterwards spun out by Duns and the Nominalists. As the 
bread, that is to say, is changed as regards the material and the 
form, both changes must be demonstrated in the transubstan- 
tiated result. But as the soul of Christ (form) only appears 
present concomitantly (per concomitantiam), the body of Christ 
must have a form for itself^ Thus Thomas is led to the idea of 
a " form of corporeity " (forma corporeitatis), which is identical 
neither with the soul nor with the outer shape, but appears as 
the ground of the qualities of the body. Further, in accordance 
with this, Thomas conceives of the conversio as a passing over 
in the strict sense of the term («^ destruction = annihilatio of the 
elements).^ The miracle is identical with a miracle of creation 
in so far as in the case of both the two states are not united by 
a common subject (substance) ; for the continued existence of 
the accidents is no real bond. Duns pursued this line further^ 
and came to the adoption of a plurality of forms in matter. He 
required this assumption, as he assailed St. Thomas with re-^ 
flections arising from the hypothesis, that the Eucharist was 
conceivably celebrated during the time when Christ lay in the 
grave. The Thomist doctrine was not framed to. meet this case„ 
as it assumed a forma substantialis for the living body. Hence, 
according to Thomas, only an imperfect transubstantiation would 
then have taken place — that is, a transubstantiation only into 
the material of the dead body. Duns himself appealed more con- 
fidently to the divine omnipotence, placed in the foreground the 
general possibility that God can transform everything (even the 
material into the spiritual, and vice versa), affirmed the existence 
of a matter without quality which is capable of everything, and 
came very close to the view, that in transubstantiation one sub- 

they cannot become accidents of the body of ChrisL In the second Article it is 
asked: **utruin quantitas dimensiva sit subjectum aliorum accidentum," etc., etc 
Here already the logical investigations into space begin. 

^ Summa P. III., Q. 75, Art. 6: ** Forma substantialis panis ncn rcmanet" 
(which is elaborately proved). Yet the breaking relates, not to the body of Christ, 
but to the species sacramentalis (** corpus Christi non frangitur") ; see Q. 77, Art. 7. 

2 Even animals, according to Thomas, enjoy the body of the Lord (Q. 80, Art. 3). 
Bonaventura is in favour of the opinio honestior that this does not happen. 



238 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

stance is annihilated and another is introduced. Above all, 
however, his thesis, that God Himself, as if on the ground of a 
contract, always works the conversio, so that the words of con- 
secration only form the occasion^ influenced all the Nominalists 
afterwards. But by a logical process there then followed also 
upon this view a modification of the way of understanding tran- 
substantiation, in the direction of impanation and consubstanti- 
ality. For it became natural to assume, that if the divine work- 
ing only accompanies the words of the priest (that is, the forma 
sacramenti), it only accompanies^ also, the elements (the materia; 
a " moral " conjunction by the free will of Christ). This doctrine 
was first suggested as possible, and then asserted as possible. But 
when once the idea of the conversio was separated by a logical 
distinction into two acts — into annihilation, and entrance of the 
body of Christ into the place of the annihilated subject — the 
first act could also drop out. The miracle only becomes the 
greater when substance stands side by side with substance. At 
the same time the signal was now given for investigations 
into space in its relation to substance, investigations virhich, 
from the time of Scotus onwards, did not continue without 
fruit for the doctrine of space. Human thought does not 
advance without receiving a determining impulse from 
the practical sphere: from the doctrine of God there grew 
up the doctrines of thought and of will ; from the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Kosmos ; from the 
doctrine of the Lord's Supper, the doctrine of space. If the 
question as to the relation of the body of Christ to the elements 
already led to inquiries into space, still greater was the impulse 
in that direction as soon as the question arose as to how 
the eucharistic body is related to the glorified body of Christ in 
heaven. The thorny discussions on this subject do not belong 
to dogma strictly speaking. As new-creation was excluded, the 
question was as to the presence in the Sacrament of the body 
that is already in heaven. And again, as the body as a ivlwle 
appears at the same time in each of the independent particles of 
the consecrated bread, a space-less presence had necessarily to 
be taught. This Thomas began to do ; ^ but it was only the 

' Q. 76, An. 3-6. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : EUCHARIST. 239 

Nominalists who treated the question as virtuosi (especially 
Occam), though they did not come definitely to the doctrine of 
the ubiquity of the body of Christ. On the other hand, it was 
they, especially John of Paris and Occam, who anticipated the 
Lutheran doctrine of the real presence in the bread.* An 
energetic opponent of the doctrine of transubstantiation was 
Wyclif (but even he did not get clearly beyond impanation, and 
if he was incensed by the idolatry that was practised with the 
host, yet it was by grounds of reason [the absurdity of accidents 
without substance] that he was moved to opposition.)* By him 
not a few (but not Huss)* were constrained to renounce the 

1 John of Paris (de modo existendi corpus Christi, etc., printed in London, 1686) 
declared that the interpretation of the real presence as conversio did not come within 
his faith, but that he was prepared to retract, if it was proved to him that the Church 
(the Pope) had defined it. After then rejecting the Berengarian doctrine, as not 
leading to communicatio idioraatum of bread and of body, he holds the following 
view as free from objection (p. 86) : **ut substantia panis maneat sub accidentibus 
suis non in proprie supposito, sed tracta ad esse et suppositum Christi, ut sic sit unum 
suppositum in duabus naturis." As Miinscher (p. 257) has correctly explained, the 
idea here is this, that the bread and the body of Christ become united into one 
substofue^ in virtue of a common likeness of their qualities, similar to tiiat which it 
was believed must be assumed in the conjoining of the two natures in Christ in the 
unity of one person. It may be said, therefore, that the orthodox Catholic view of 
the Supper is Monophysite ; the Berengarian, Nestorian ; and that of John of Paris, 
Chalcedonian. Even Occam declared that there is nothing in Scripture on the 
question that the substance of the bread does not remain (de sacram. alt. 5), and with 
regard to the view of the real presence, according to which "corpus Christi in eodem 
loco cum substantia panis et vini manet," he says that it is **multum rationalis, nisi 
esset determinatio ecclesise in contrarium, quia ilia sal vat et vitat omnes difficultates 
quae sequuntur ex separatione accidentium a subjecto" (for this contradicts the 
Nominalist theory of knowledge). But he falls back ultimately on the wish that the 
doctrine of the conversio may be revealed to the Church. 

* Trial. IV. 2: ** Inter omnes htereses, quae unquam in ecclesia pullularunt, 
nunquam considero aliquam plus callide per hypocritas introductam et multiplicius 
populum defraudantem, nam spoliat populum, facit ipsum committere idololatriam, 
negat iidem scriptural et per consequens ex infidelitate multipliciter ad iracundiam 
provocat veritatem." In c. 4 he then works out the view that panis and body of 
Christ are at the same time present. Yet he scouts the idea that any kind of priest — 
even a sinful one therefore — can produce Christ. The doctrine of impanation 
receives from him a spiritual turn, though this has not the effect of entirely cancelling 
it. Against the coarse form of this doctrine he waged war, and came close to 
Berengar. 

' In his treatise de corpore Christi, written during imprisonment, Huss assents to 
transubstantiation. But from his other writings we must assume that he was not of 



240 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

monstrous doctrine, and in the fifteenth century the opposition 
to it is met with not infrequently.' Yet it remained the reigning 
view; the hostility of declared heretics could only be in its 
favour.* 

The consequences of the transubstantiation doctrine were 
manifold, and of radical importance ; the following may be 
mentioned : — 

(i) The discontinuance of child communion.* 

(2) The augmentation of the dignity of the priests, by whom 
daily Christ was magically produced and offered up. 

(3) The withholding of the cup. From the time of the 
Lombard it was a settled belief that the whole Christ is con- 
tained in each species, and that meant, too (according to the 
doctrine developed especially by Thomas),* Christ concomit- 
antly (per concomitantiam) in His body and soul as well as in 
His divinity. But that being so, it was permissible, safer indeed 
(that the wine might not be spilt, and the Sacrament thereby 
profaned), and, with a view to increasing the dignity of the priest, 
" conveniens," that the layman should receive only in the form 

the opinion that a sinful priest can effect it (see above his conception of the Church, 

p. 143)- 

* Wesel was an adherent of the impanation doctrine. 

* The decree as to the Lord's Supper in the Bull of Eugene IV. ** Exultate deo** 
runs: "Tertium est eucharistiac sacramcntum, cujus materia est panis triticeus ct 
vinum de vite, cui ante consccrationem aqua modicissima admisceri debet (there 
follows an elaborate justification of this mixing in opposition to the Armenian 
practice). Forma hujus sacramenti sunt verba salvatoris, quibus hoc conficit sacra- 
mcntum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi ct 
substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur, ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur 
sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibct quoque parte hostiae consecratse 
et vini con^ecrati, separationc facta, totus est Christus. Hujus sacramenti effectus, 
quern in anima operatur dignc sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum. Et quia 
per gratiam homo Christo incorporatur et membris ejus unitur, consequens est, quod 
per hoc sacramentum in sumentibus digne gratia augcatur, omnemque effectum, quern 
materialis cibus et potus quoad vitam agunt corporalem sustentando, augendo, 
rcparando et delectando, sacramentum hoc quoad vitam operatur spiritualem, in quo, 
ut inquit Uibanus Papa, gratam salvatoris nostri recensemus memoriam, a inalo 
retrahimur, confortamur 111 bono et ad virtutum et gratiarum proficimus incre- 
mentum." 

3 This certainly had also other grounds ; but one ground lay in the extravagant 
ideas of the content of the Sacrament. 
"» P. III., Q. 76, Arts. 1 and 2. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : EUCHARIST. 241 

of the bread (sub specie panis), while the priest drank the cup 
in the name of all.' At Constance this became fixed. 

(4) The adoration of the elevated host (elevation is repre- 
sented as having been already adopted in opposition to Berengar), 
the procession of the host, and the feast of Corpus Christi 
(1264. 131 1) : for the body of Christ is, of course, not present 
merely at the moment of enjoyment, but, when once produced 
by consecration, remains until the accidents are dissolved.* 
Against this idolatry there arose in the fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries much opposition, which, however, continued to be 
lacking in vigour. 

It was already pointed out above that as regards the idea of 
the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the Lombard was still influenced by 
the old ecclesiastical motive of recordatio (remembrance). But 
from ecclesiastical antiquity there was certainly taken over also 
the idea of the repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ 
(Gregory I.), and on the basis of the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion this idea now necessarily became firmly established. The 
Roman Canon of the Mass, which did not originally contain the 
idea of the bloodless repetition of the death of Christ, and still 
bears traces to-day of not having contained it, has in its most 
recent portions the new idea. At the Lateran Council in 12 15 
the idea is presupposed, and brief note is taken of it,* and the 
Schoolmen, although they do not here give elaborated doctrines, 
have no other thought than that the priest offers the body of the 
Lord.* The Eucharist as a sacrifice, as it formed the central 

1 Thomas, P. 1 1 1., Q. 80, Art. 12: The priest »«u/ enjoy the sacramentum perfectum, 
since he celebrates it ; the custom of some Churches is to be approved (Thomas still 
expresses himself cautiously) of withholding the cup from incautious laymen. There- 
after there was a rapid advance made in practice ; the history of this process, and of 
the opposition to it, is not relevant here, as a dogma was not involved. 

2 Q. 76^ Art. 6 : ** Corpus Christi manet, quousque species sacramentalcs manent." 

»Chap. I. 

4 For the Eucharist as a repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ, there could be 
produced from tradition only a bad, and, to some extent, a forged proof. Thomas 
treats the question in Q. 83, Art I. According to his custom he raises at the outset 
three objections, and they are very telling, against the position that Christ is offered 
in this Sacrament. He appeals, first, to the passage in Hebrews about the being once 
offered ; secondly, to the circumstance that in the Mass Christ is not crucified ; 
thirdly, to the Augustinian position, that in the sacrifice of Christ '* idem est sacerdos- 

o 



242 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

part of divine service, was for the people much more important 
than the Sacrament Although, in strict theory, there were 
connected with it only slender results (see above), yet misdirected 
piety made this observance entirely its own, and saw in it its real 
defence in life and in death. The mischief of low masses and 
masses for souls was as much the consequence of violent impor- 
tunity on the part of the laity for as many masses as possible, as 

et hostia," which does not apply in the case of the Mass. But he then explains that 
(i) the om sacrifice is not touched by the repetition, for in the repetition it remains 
always the same ; (2) that the altar is repraesentativum cnicis ; and (3) that the priest 
*' gerit imaginem Christi," and hence it holds good even for the sacrifice of the mass, 
that ** quodammodo idem est sacerdos et hostiaJ** The positive exposition is extremely 
weak, even when we adopt Thomas's standpoint, and shows plainly that at bottom the 
repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ could not in any way be theoretically 
justified. But it stands here as it does with the doctrine of the Church. The prac- 
tice justifies itself by its existence ! What Thomas has submitted is as follows : — 
*'Duplici ratione celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur immolatio Christi. Prime 
quidem quia, sicut dicit Augustinus ad Simplic. solent imagines earum rerum nomin* 
ibus appellari, quarum imagines sunt . . . celebratio autem hujus sacramenti, 
sicut supra dictum est (Q. 79, Art. I. 3), imago qusedam est representativa passionis 
Christi quae esc vera ejus immolatio. Et ideo celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur 
Christi immolatio (here, therefore, there is an expression only of symbol and remem- 
brance). Alio modo quantum ad effcctum passionis Christi, quia scil. per hoc sacra- 
mentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis, unde in quadam dominicali 
oratione secreta dicitur : Quoties hujus hostile commemoratio celebratur, opus 
nostrae redemptionis exercetur. Quantum igitur ad primum modum poterat did 
Christus immolari etiam in figuris Veteris Testamenti . . . sed quantum ad 
secundum modum proprium est huic sacramento, quod in ejus celebratione Christus 
immolatur." One easily sees that there is not the smallest degree ofproof given for the 
repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ. Even in other passages in which Thomas 
speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, I have found nothing more than bare assertions, 
and sometimes an entire uncertainty as to the relation of the Eucharistic to the true 
sacrifice. Mow weak the position is, too, with regard to the effect of this sacrifice, is 
sho vn by Q. 79, Art. $ : ** Sacramentum effectum sacrificii in eo qui ofTert babet vel 
in his, pro quibus offertur." It is really instituted as a sacrament; for ** non est 
institutumad satisfaciendum, sed ad spiritualiter nutriendum per unionemad Christum," 
but **per concomitantiam " a certain remission of penalty also is effected. "In 
quantum est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis cUtenditur 
affectus offerentis quam quant it as oblationis, Quamvis ergo haec oblatio ex sui quan- 
titate sufiiciat ad satisfaciendum pro omni poena, tamen sit satisfactoria illis, pro 
quibus offertur vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suae devotionis et non 
pro tota poena." It must by no means be regarded as an accident that Thomas has 
not repeated the audacious propositions of Hugo and Albertus (the Father first offered 
the Son for us, we then offer Him for the Father). Thomas has only allowed the 
term vera immolatio to stand, because he held that the ** Church" taught it. In the 
Bull of Eugene IV. , moreover (see above), there is no mention of a repetition. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : PENANCE. 243 

of priestly self-importance ; for in the Mass the priest, who is 
here not a minister but an originator (autor), appears in a very 
real sense as the mediator between God and men, and, as priest 
of the body of Christ (sacerdos corporis Christi), his dignity 
comes most distinctly to view. The Mass was assailed as 
unbiblical by Wyclif. On the part of others also opposition 
arose in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries against the low 
masses and masses for souls, which, however, was directed, as a 
rule, only against the abuse (abusus). 

4. Penanced Although in theory baptism and the Eucharist 
were placed together and emphasised as the two principal 
Sacraments, yet, as a fact, the two chief closely connected Sacra- 
ments were baptism and penance (" second plank after ship- 
wreck " [secunda tabula post naufragium] — so first Tertullian, 
after him many teachers). But inasmuch as baptism is only 
administered once, while the Sacrament of Penance is admin- 
istered repeatedly, and as almost every baptised person comes 
to be in a position for requiring this latter Sacrament, for which 
no other can be substituted, this Sacrament became practically 
the most important means of grace. Now, as the Church had 
completely saturated this Sacrament with its hierarchical spirit, 
and at the same time attached to it its enfeebled doctrines of sin, 
grace, and merit, the most important means of grace thus 
became subordinated to the meaner ecclesiastical tendencies.* 

The hierarchical practice, which the laity themselves de- 
manded as a security for grace, preceded the theory by many 
centuries. In respect of theory there was a special shyness 
on this point, and an adhering to the evangelical line of 
thought, that the genuine contrition of the Christian is in 
itself "sacramental" (see above).' In spite of the attempts 

1 Thomas, Summa, P. III. Q. 84-90, Suppl. Q. x.28. Schwane, p. 661, ff. Steitz 
das romische Busssacrament, 1854. 

« Herrmann remarks correctly (Ztschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche I vol., p. 30): "In the 
Romish institution of penance the question is not about the way in which the 
Christian attains to renewal of mind, but about providing security for the Christian as 
he is. 

3 Karl Muller, in the dissertation referred to above (p. 222), sees in this rather 
something new. Certainly this thought was for a long time not expressed, because there 
was entirely wanting a "theologian of penance"; but neither had the prevailing sacra- 
mental priestly practiceany normal theologian. In my opinion it was a novelty in 



244 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

of Hugo to define the Sacrament of Penance in a stricter eccle- 
siastical sense (the priest effects forgiveness; but Hugo still 
demands, on the other side, the perfect contritio),* the Lom- 
bard as the disciple of Abelard, and Master Roland, too,* 
adhered to the old ecclesiastical theory.3 Gratian placed 

theology^ when Hugo of St. Victor (see Muller, p. 218 f.) declared that man can only 
be freed from the sentence of eternal damnation by priestly absolution, that this ab- 
solution is perfectly real, and that *' sententiam Petri non pnecedit, sed subsequitur 
sententia coeli." In opposition to this, Abelard, and all those who, following in his 
steps (see MUller, p. 308 E), emphasised the contritio, and regarded God as the 
judex, the priest as the declarator, appear to me to have reproduced an old ecclesias- 
tical thought, which is parallel to the Augustinian ** Crede et manducasti," and coin- 
cides with the very early idea that sins against God are only forgiven by God. That 
—as the practice of penance, as regards the satisfactions, had become quite diflerent 
from what it was in the ancient Church — the distinctions of Abelard and his disciples 
with respect to this were new, is certain. 

1 De sacram. H. x. 14. Moreover, Hugo certainly then makes other conditions 
still as regards the certainty and sovereignty of the priestly forgiveness of sin with re- 
spect to the forgiveness of God. That at bottom the Sacraments, as a whole, effect 
only the possibility of salvation — the cardinal thought that lies concealed under the 
Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments — is acknowledged by Hugo in the following very 
noteworthy sentence (c. 8) : '* Ubique magis virtus sacramentorum exprimitur, nee 
quod pel ea quilibet participantes salvandi sint, sed quod salvaripossinty significcUur.** 
A pernicious influence on the shaping of the new theory and practice of penance was 
exercised by the Pseudo- Augustinian treatise de vera et falsa psenitentia (Migne T. 40, 
col. 1 1 13 sq.), which seems to have appeared in the tenth or in the beginning of 
the eleventh century (see Karl MuUer, Abhandl. f. Weizsacker, 1892, p. 292. ff.). 
Luther had already recognised its spuriousness before 1517. 

2 It has been effectively shown by MUller, that the spiritual view of penance goes 
back to Abelard. He says, ** the great innovation " ; I would say " restoration." 

On this account, therefore, he is in disfavour among modem Catholic theologians. 
Credit is given to him, indeed, for placing together the three things, contritio (com- 
punctio) cordis, confessio oris, satisfactio operis, but his demanding 9i perfect contritio 
(caritate perfecta), and his not regarding the priestly absolution as absolutely necessary 
are held to be grave defects. As a fact, he declared the contritio, conjoined with the 
votum confitendi, to be sufficient ; this is followed by the divine forgiveness of sins, 
the infusion of grace and the remission of the eternal penalty " ante oris confessionem 
et satisfactionem " (Sentent. IV., 17 A). Hence the consequent reckoning of the 
priestly absolution as a forgiveness merely declarative^ or as a forgiveness merely 
ecclesioLsticaly as distinguished from the divine forgiveness, 18 E : ** Ecce quam varia 
a doctoribus super his traduntur, et in hac tanta varietate quid tenendum sit ? Hoc 
sane dicere ac sentire possumus, quod solus deus peccata dimittit et retinet^ et tamen 
ecclesise contulit potestatem ligandi et solvendi. Sed aliter ipse solvit vel ligat^ aliler 
ecclesia. Ipse enim per se tantum ita dimittit peccatum, quia et animam mimdat ab 
interiori macula et a debito seternie mortis solvit." 18 F : ** Non autem hoc sacerdo- 
tibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem ligandi et solvendi i.^., ostendemU 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: PENANCE. 24S 

the old and new views side by side, without coming to a deci- 
sion himself.* 

The Lateran Council of 12 15 laid here also the basis of a fixed 
doctrine. This doctrine appears in perfected form, not yet in 
Alexander of Hales, but certainly in Thomas. Thomas shows 
first (in Q. 84) that penance is a Sacrament In the ist Art 
he starts the objections that there are no corporeal things 
(corporales res) present, that penance is not dispensed "by 
ministers of Christ," but is inwardly wrought by God, and, 
finally, that we cannot distinguish between sacramentum, res, 
and res and sacramentum. But he sets aside these objections 
by pointing to the visible acts of the penitent and of the absolv- 
ing priest, and by recognising in the former, which are completed 
by the latter, the materia sacramenti. In the 2nd Art. he shows 
that these acts are the materia proxima (proximate material), 
while the sins "to be detested and destroyed " (peccata detestenda 
et destruenda) are the materia remota (remote material). In the 
3rd Art. there follows the fatal proof that the words, " I absolve 
thee *' (ego te absolvo) are the form (forma) of the Sacrament, 
for " this Sacrament receives its full effect from those things 
which are spoken by the priest " (hoc sacramentum perficitur 
per ea quae sunt ex parte sacerdotis) ; but these words of the 
priest are by appointment of Christ (Matt. 16). Since the 
Sacraments "effect what they represent" (eflSciunt quod figurant), 
it is not enough in the sacramental absolution to say, " May 
God have mercy on thee " (misereatur tui deus) ; " yet such 
language is also premised in the sacramental absolution, that the 
effect of the Sacrament may not be hindered on the side of the 
penitent" (praemittitur tamen etiam in sacramentali absolutione 
talis oratio, ne impediatur effectus sacramenti ex parte 

homines Hgaios et solutos . . . Quia etsi aliquis apud deum sit solutus, turn tamen 
in facie ecclesia solutus hahetur nisi per judicium sacerdotis. In solvendis ergo culpis 
et retinendis ita operatur sarcerdos evangelicus et judicat, sicut olim legalis in illis qui 
contaminati erant lepra qux peccatum significat." In addition to the declaration of 
forgiveness as an ecclesiastical act (for the congregation), the binding and loosing on 
the part of the priests consists, according to the Lombard, simply in this, that they 
impose the works connected with penance, or, abate and remit them. Here, there- 
fore, there still exists a complete understanding of the distinction between inward for- 
giveness and ecclesiastical reconciliation. 
1 De paenit. P. II., c. 33, q. 3, dist. x. 



246 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

paenitentis). The general rule that God alone forgives sin is 
not violated by the priest's absolution, for the priests are 
** authorised ministers " (this is a makeshift). In Art 4 the 
laying on of the hand at confession is dealt with (it is not 
necessary, as what is contemplated is forgiveness of sins, not the 
obtaining of positive grace). In Art. 5 the necessity of sacra- 
mental penance for anyone guilty of mortal sin is shown : " the 
salvation of the sinner — that is, that his sin be removed from 
him — is not possible without the Sacrament of Penance, in which 
there operates the virtue of Christ's passion, through absolution 
of the priest together with the work of the penitent, who 
co-operates with grace for the destruction of sin." To this there 
is further added : " When once anyone has fallen into sin (ex 
quo aliquis peccatum incurrit), love^ faith^ and mercy do not 
deliver the man from sin without penitence (as if they could exist 
at all without penitence !) ; for love requires that a man grieve 
for the offence committed against his friend, and that a man be 
anxious to satisfy his friend ; faith also requires that he seek to 
be justified from his sins through the virtue of the passion of 
Christ, which operates in the Sacraments of the Church ; rightly 
directed mercy (misericordia ordinata) also requires that a man 
find a remedy in his repenting for the misery into which his sin 
has plunged him (ut homo subveniat paenitendo suae miseriae, 
quam per peccatum incurrit) " (but the necessity of sacramental 
penance has not thus been proved). In Art. 6 it is shown that 
penance is "the second plank after shipwreck." In Art. 8 
it is explained that the " paenitentia " does not need to last till 
the end of life, but only " for a time determined by the measure 
of the sin " (ad determinatum tempus pro mensura peccati) ; yet 
" penitence is twofold, viz.^ internal and external. That is 
internal penitence in which one grieves over sin committed, and 
such penitence ought to last till the close of life. . . . That is 
external penitence in which one shows external signs of grief, 
and verbally (verbo tenus) confesses his sins to the priest who 
absolves him, and makes satisfaction according to the priest's 
judgment (juxta ejus arbitrium satisfacit) ; and such penitence 
does not need to continue till the end of life, but only for a time 
determined by the measure of the sin." In Art. 9 it is shown 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : PENANCE. 247 

that a penitence continuous in act (continua secundum actum) 
is impossible, but that a penitence continuous in habit (secundum 
habitum) is obligatory. In Art. 10 it is proved that sacramental 
penance can be repeated ; love can be lost through free will; 
but God's mercy seeks always to restore it In Q. 85 there now 
follows a minute inquiry into penance as ** virtue," and in Q. 86 
the effect of penance is dealt with " as regards the remission of 
mortal sins " (quoad mortalium peccatorum remissionem). 
Here it is explained in Art 4 that with the forgiveness of guilt 
and the cancelling of eternal penalty all the *' penal liability " 
(reatus poenae) is not blotted out ("potest remanere"). If sin, 
that is to say, is departure from God as the supreme good, and 
" a perverse turning to mutable good *' (conversio inordinata ad 
commutabile bonum), then there follows from the former eternal, 
from the latter temporal guilt and penalty. Now, although 
penance takes the eternal guilt and penalty, as well as the 
temporal guilt, entirely away, yet the temporal penalty may 
remain ; for "in baptism a man attains to (consequitur)aremission 
of his whole penal guilt (reatus totius poenae), but in penance he 
attains to the virtue of the passion of Christ according to the 
measure of his own acts (secundum modum propriorum actuum) 
(this, then, is the ultimate ground of the strange and objection- 
able view) which are the material of penance (qui sunt materia 
paenitentiae) ; and so it is not always by the first act of penance^ by 
which blame {culpa) is remitted, that liability to the whole penalty 
is cancelled, but by all the acts of penance when completed " (et ideo 
non statim per primum actum paenitentiae quo remittitur culpa, 
solvitur reatus totius poenae, sed completis omnibus paenitentiae 
actibus).^ In Q. 87, in which the forgiveness of venial sins 
through penance is treated, it is shown that to one guilty of 

* Hence, also, in the 5th Article the following exposition : " Peccatum raortale ex 
parte conversionis inordinate ad bonum commutabile quandam dispositionem causat 
in anima vel etiam habitum, si cuius frequenter iteretur, Sicut autem dictum est, 
culpa peccati mortalis remittitur, in quantum tollitur pergratiam aversio mentis a deo. 
Sublato autem eo, quod est ex parte aversionis, nihilominus remanere potest id quod 
est ex parte conversionis inordinat^e, cum banc contingat esse sine ilia (!), sicut prius 
dictum est ; et ideo nihil prohibet, quin remissa culpa remaneant dispositiones ex 
prsecedentibus actibus causatse, qux dicuntur peccati reliquia . . . sicut etiaro 
remanet fomes post baptismum." 



248 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

mortal sin no venial sins are forgiven, so long as the mortal sin 
is not blotted out (Art. 4). With Q. 90 begins the inquiry into 
the " parts of penance." 

As all these thoughts of Thomas were no doubt already com- 
mon property in his day, so they continued also to be among 
the Schoolmen. The necessity of priestly absolution, hence 
also confession before the priest, and, still further, the idea of 
the effectual action of the priest in the Sacrament, were settled 
matters.* The inner contrition was certainly regarded as res 
and sacramentum (the res sacramenti is the forgiveness of sins; 
the Sacrament is the external acts of the penitent and the priests; 
see Thomas III., Q. 84, Art. i) ; but it is not enough, and just 
because it is not yet enough, the perverse opinion could easily 
creep in ex contrario, that perfect contrition is, indeed, essential 
to non-sacramental penitence, but that in the case of sacramental 
penitence the addition of the Sacrament completes the imper- 
fect contrition. This opinion not merely crept in, it became 
actually dominant. But in the definition of the particular parts 
of penance (partes paenitentiae) a general perversion of the 
worst kind made its appearance, of which the seeds, indeed, are 
to be found already in Thomas.* 

With respect to contrition, no other thought was entertained 
till the thirteenth century (see above, p. 221 ff.)than that what is 
alone of account before God is a perfect penitent disposition, ue.^dL 
disposition prompted by love.* Contrition as an inner spirit and 
habitwas magnified as an essential Christian virtue, and as "virtue** 

^ Yet there still continued certainly to be a want of logical consistency, in so &r as 
many Schoolmen maintained that perfect contrition conjoined with the votum sacra- 
fiunti is immediately followed by the forgiveness of sins — a position which even to- 
day is stili valid in the Catholic Church « 

* How seriously even the fundamental theory was threatened (though that of 
Thomas continued to be held valid) is shown by the proposals of Duns Scotus and 
Durandus (see Schwane, p. 665) to call the sacrament not so much '* penance" as 
** confession." Durandus would only have confession and absolution described as 
material and form of the sacrament ; for contrition and satisfaction are not parts of the 
Sacrament, but the preparation for the forgiveness of sin (Durandus, in Sent IV., 
Dist. 16, Q. i). This proposal is quite logical, but it shows very plainly how 
penitence had become externalised in having become a sacrament. It was inevitable 
that this process of externalising should continue. 

'See Stiickert, Die Katholische Lehre v. d. Reue, 1896. 



•CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : PENANCE. 249 

received elaborate treatment.' But it was already pointed out 
bv Alexander of Hales that God has made entrance into the 
Church easier for man,* and he distinguishes attritio (timor 
servilis [servile fear]) from contritio. This distinction Thomas 
adopted. He explains, however : " attrition, as is declared by 
all, is not a virtuous activity " (attritio, ut ab omnibus dicitur, 
non est actus virtutis). Yet he then defines it in the same article 
as " in spiritual matters a certain displeasure over sins com- 
mitted, which, however, is not perfect, but is an approach to 
perfect contrition " (in spiritualibus quaedum displicentia de 
peccatis com missis, sed non perfecta, [quae est] accessus ad per- 
fectam contritionem).3 Prior to him Bonaventura had already 

* Thomas, Summa III., Suppl. Q. I : contritio in opposition to superbia, which is 
initium omnis peccati. An extremely artificial and empty distinction between con- 
tritio as virtus and contritio as sacramental in Q. $, Art. I : "Contritio potest 
dupliciter considerari, vel in quantum est pars s.acramenti vel in quantum est actus 
virtutis, et utroque modo est causa rcmissionis peccati, sed diversimode : quia in 
quantum est pars sacramenti primo operatur ad remissionem peccati instrumentalitor, 
sicut et de aliis sacramentis patet ; in quantum autem est actus virtutis sic est quasi 
causa materialis remissionis peccati, eo quod dispositio est quasi necessitas adjustiBca- 
tionem, dispositio autem reducitur ad causani materialem.'' I'o the question, why 
then the sacrament is necessary if the contritio is enough, Thomas replies (Lc. Art. 
1) : ** Quamvis possit tota pcena per contritionem dimitti, tamen adhuc necessaria est 
-confessio et satisfactio, tum quia homo non potest esse certus de sua contritione, 
quod fiierit ad totum tollendum sufficiens, tum etiam quia confessio et satisfactio sunt 
in pnecepto." 

'Summa IV., Q. 59, M. 2, A. 4: **■ expeditius et melius liberatur peccator per 
sacramentum panitentia quam ^^i p<mitentia virtutem,^'* 

» P. III., Suppl. Q. I, Art. 2. Without using the word ** attritio," he gives already 
the thing in P. III., Q. 85, Art. 5, where an exceedingly important statement of the 
stages of penance is given, which clearly shows the divergence of the Catholic from 
the evangelical view : " De psenitentia loqui possumus dupliciter. Uno modo 
quantum ad habitum. Et sic immediate a deo infunditur sine nobis principal iter 
operantibus . . . alio mo<Io possumus loqui de psenitentia quantum ad actus quibus 
deo operanti in psenitentia cooperamur. Quorum actuum primum principium est del 
operatio convert entis cor, secundus actus est motus fidei, tertius est motus timoris 
servilis, quo quis timore suppliciorum a peccatis retrahitur" (take also : •* peccatum 
prius incipit hf»mini displicere [maxime peccatori] propter supplicia, quae respicit 
timor servilis, quam propter dei offensam vel peccati lurpitudinem, quod pertinct ad 
caritatem . . . ipse etiam motus timoris procedit ex actu dei convertentis cor"). 
** Quartus actus est motus spei, quo quis sub spe venise consequendae assuniit pro- 
positum emendandi. Quintus actus est motus caritatis, quo alicui peccatum displicet 
secundum se ipsum et non jam propter supplicia" (that is the contritio). ** Scxtus 
•est motus timoris filialis, quo propter reverentiam dei aliquis emendam deo voluntarius 
offert." 



250 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. lU 

m 

said : ' " For the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary that 
he who comes to it has love, or an inclination to love that is 
sufficient when judged by the standard of truth, provided it be 
sufficient when judged by the standard of probability ; but this 
disposition is attritio, which, by reason of superadded confession 
and absolution of the priest, frequently so receives form from 
grace (formatur per gratiam), that it becomes contritio, or that 
contritio follows upon it." This thought Thomas did noi adopt; 
he tacitly rejected it rather, and expressed himself altogether 
with strictness and earnestness regarding contritio and its neces- 
sity in Q. 1-5. Yet the considerations suggested by Alexander of 
Hales ' and Bonaventura continued to have their influence. It 
was especially Scotus who secured currency for the view, that 
attrition, in itself inadequate, is sufficient for the reception of 
the Sacrament of Penance, since the Sacrament itself makes 
the sorrow perfect by " infusion of grace." ^ On this point the 
decrees of Trent adopted — though, indeed, only conditionally — 
the side of the Scotists.* 

1 In Sentent. IV., Dist. 17, p. 2, a. i, q. 4. 

^Summa IV., Q. 60, A. 3 : **si autem psenitens prseparatus quantum in se est 
accedat ad confessionem attriius, non contritus . . . confessio cum subjectione 
arbitrio sacerdotis et satisfactio paenitentiae injuncUe a sacerdote est signum et causa 
deletionis culpae et poenae, quia sic subjiciendo se et satisfaciendo gratiam acqoirit.'' 

2 See Reportt IV., Dist. 14, Q. 4, schol. 2 (quoted in Schwane, p. 666) : "Dico^ 
quod bonus motus praecedcns sacramentum paenitentiae tantum est attritio et dis- 
positio de congruo ad deletionem culpse et infusionem gratiae, quae remissio culpae et 
collatio gratias sunt in virtute sacramenti pacnitentiae et non in virtute attritionis tantum^ 
nisi dispositive. Sed haec attritio post collationem gratiae, quae confertur in suscep- 
tione sacramenti, fit contritio formata. " 

••Sess. XIV. de paenit., c. 4: "attritio peccatorum ad dei gratiam in sacramento 
paenitentiae impetrandam disponit." In recent times, following Lammer (Vortrident. 
Theologie), Bratke (Luther's 95 Thesen und ihre dogmenhistor. Voraussetzung, 
1884) and Dieckhoff (Der Ablasstreit, dogmengesch. dargestellt, x886) have very 
fully treated the scholastic doctrine of penance in connection with the doctrine of 
indulgences, after a controversy on the doctrine of indulgences had broken out, 
occasioned by the great work of Janssen (see Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Ccm* 
gregation u. Johann v. Staupitz, 1879, the same author in the ThLZ. 1882, No. 23, 
and also dissertations by Kawerau, Kostlin, Schweitzer and Janssen *'An meine 
Kritiker "). Bratke already placed the doctrine of indulgences in a clearer light in 
opposition to Kostlin. But Dieckhof has especially the credit of having traced back 
the theory to the lax view of penance, and of having shown that here the seat of the 
evil must be sought for. There can be no doubt that the doctrine of attritio more 
and more threatened to become the Churches chief means of producing ease ofmind^ 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: PENANCE. 25 1 

The theologian on confession (before the priest) is Thomas, 
the Lombard having previously, as Cathoh'c scholars express it, 
thrown obscurity over the connection between confession and 

and that it actually became such subsequently in wide circles (especially through the 
influence of the Jesuit Father Confessors ; but also, prior to them, through the influence 
of the preachers of indulgences). Opposition certainly was not wanting, and it grew 
stronger in many circles in the fifteenth century (Augustinian-Thomist reaction, see 
Bratke, p. 59 fl*. and elsewhere) ; but when one reads, e.g, , the discussions of John 
of Paltz, the senior contemporaiy and Augustinian brother of Luther (Kolde I.e.), one 
is shocked to see what a withering up of religion and of the simplest morality resulteil 
from the "attritio" ("gallows-repentance"). The priest is here extravagantly 
dignified (in the book ** Coelifodina ") ; for he is the most necessary person, because 
only very few men are really contrite ; on the other hand, everyone can bring himself 
in the end to an imperfect contrition ; and now he, the priest, through the sacrament 
of penance, transforms this imperfect into a perfect sorrow ('*paucissimi sunt vere 
contriti, ergo paucissimi salvarentur sine sacerdotibus ; possunt autem omnes aliquo 
modo fieri attriti, et tales possunt sacerdotes juvare et eorum ministerio facere con- 
tritos et per consequens possunt eos salvare "). Or — everything depends on an ex- 
perienced priest; there is nothing lacking to anyone who finds such ("non potest 
esse peccator adeo desperatus, quia posset consequi indulgentias, si habuerit intelli- 
gentem et fidelem informatorem et voluerit facere, quod potest, et habeat attritumem 
aliquaUm^ quae tunc in sacramentis sibi succurritur et imperfectum ejus tollitur, et 
informis attritio, t.^., caritate carens formatur per giatiam sacramentalem ") ; see Kolde, 
pp. 187, 191 ; DieckhofT, p. 14; Bratke, pp. 53 ff., ill ff., 128 ff". The last -mentioned 
gives abundant material, from which it appears that Paltz by no means stood alone. 
Everywhere the assertion is made that it is easier^ under the new covenant, to attain 
salvation on account of the wonderful efficacy of the cross of Christ. At the same 
time it did not fail to be clearly seen that attritio is something else than contritio, not 
merely quantitatively, but also qualitatively, Gabriel Biel, who certainly thinks 
more earnestly about contrition than Paltz, knows very well that under some circum- 
stances attritio springs from imm^^ra/ motives, hence is by no means a pars contrition is, 
and is besides, as a rule, a passing mood ( Bratke, p. 46 f. ). Others knew that also, and 
nevertheless calmly built up on this attritio their theories that were to lead to heaven. 
Indeed some actually gave insliiictions for deluding God in heaven and His holy law ; 
entrance into heaven was to be secured by merely guarding against mortal sin for one 
day in the year or for one hour, and showing for this space of time aliquam attritionem 
(see Petrus de Palude in Bratke, p. 84 ff., especially p. 87, note i). Thus the 
doctrine of attritio, which dominates the whole Christian life, is really the radical 
source of mischief in the Catholic system of doctrine ; for in it both things are at 
work, the magical, and therefore godless, conception of the efficacy of the Sacrament, 
and the idea, which is no longer Pelagian, but is pressed to the point of denial of all 
that is moral, of a ** merit" recognised in any kind of motus that is only a turning 
away from sin. In the fourth extra number of the Rom. Quartalschr. (1896), p. 122 
ff., Finke has attempted to combat the exposition given here. O/i^ projx)sition of 
the first edition I have now shaped more precisely. The sentence about the " wither- 
ing up of religion and the simplest morality " I could not change. I would not have 
written it, if it said in a general way (so Finke seems to have misunderstood me). 



252 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

the Sacrament, and over the necessity of the former, an ob- 
scurity not yet entirely removed even by Halesius.* In Q. 6 

that at the end of the fifteenth century religion and the simplest moraliiy had become 
a desolate waste. That was not my thought ; I only said that where attritionism 
reigns, as in the case of John of Paltz and others, withering up is a necessary result. 
To deal now with the subject itself, Finke asserts (i) that an attritio which has only 
the timor servilis, in which the fixed purpose of thorough repentance is not present, 
was ttever held to be adequate sorrow. If the ** was held " is not to have the sense 
of ** was established as an authoritative dogma," or if the notion "adequate sorrow" 
is not equivocal (attritio is of cour>e in itself never " adequate sorrow," but it be- 
comes such through the sacrament), then the position is felse; cf. Dollinger and 
Reusch, Moraktreitigkeiten (1^89), I., p. 69 ff., and many other passages. Liguori 
himself was an attritionist (p. 458 f.); what he requires over and above the timor 
servihs, does not, from the way in which he has presented it, possess much weight. 
Finke asserts (2) : "In the practice of penance, confession, and preaching, that is, in 
dealing with the Christian people, it was ahaays taught from the seventh century to 
the sixteenth, that contritio is requisite for confession ; the conception of contritio, 
which an Isidore presented in the seventh century and a Rabanus in the ninth, coin- 
cides with that which we meet with in the sermons at the close of the Middle Ages." 
This thesis the author seeks to prove by furnishing (we are thankful to him for it) on 
pages 128-135 of his dissertation, extracts from sermons at the end of the mediaeval 
period, which are intended to show that sorrow springing from fear was not regarded 
as adequate. Certainly, we reply, how often must the words have been spoken from 
the pulpit at that lime : ** contritio non potest esse sine caritate" ! But how little is 
proved by that ! We must question the preachers of indulgences, and observe the 
real spirit that was awakened by the confessional and by indulgences. What the 
Reformers relate to us in this regard, what we can ourselves discern from the decrees 
of Trent as to the practice disapproved by the Fathers of the Council, what breaks out 
again afterwards as attritionism in spite of the Tridentinum, is certainly more im- 
portant than what was said in sermons and general directions as to repentance, which 
of course urged to the utmost endeavour. In sermons it was also said that all good 
works are gifts from God ; but did Luther simply misunderstand the temper of his 
Church, when, in looking back to his works as a monk, he speaks of his *'own 
works" with a view to sanctification, which he had wished to practise in the spirit of the 
Church? Besides the assertion which Finke makes without qualifications, which he 
has printed in italics, and which relates to a thousand years, is itself very considerably 
restricted when he says (p. 123): "The question is as to whether attritio was the 
form of sorrow in the circles of our people, and not as to the doctrinal opinions of a 
Duns Scotus, etc., which remained unknown to the people." As developed doctrines 
of course they remained unknown to the people; but were these doctrines really 
without consequences in practice ? And why should one make so light of the doctrines 
of tlie theologians ? In view of the worthlessness of attritio as timor servilis asserted 
by Finke, observe what Bellarmin (de poenit. II. c. 17) says as to its value. Perrone 
(de poenit. c. 2, § 91 f.) has certainly been somewhat more cautious, inasmuch as he 
introduces the distinction between the timor simpliciter servilis and the worthless 
timor serviliter servilis. 

^ As the priest, according to Halesius, could still only remit temporal penalties and 
could not forgive sins, even on that account the necessity of confession could not be 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : PENANCE. 253 

(P. III. Suppl.) Thomas has dealt at length with the necessity 
of confession. In Art. i its absolute necessity is proved from 
the nature of the case ; ' in Art. 2 it is shown that confession is 
divinely enjoined (juris divini) ; in 3 it is pointed out that 
though, according to divine law, only those guilty of mortal sin 
are obliged to confess, yet according to positive law all Christians 
must confess at least once a year ; * in Art 4 it is laid down 
that one may not confess sins of which he does not know him- 
self to be guilty ; in 5 it is declared that it is not necessary to 
salvation (de necessitate salutis) to confess sins at once, but that 
delay is not without danger, and that a regard to Church regu- 
lations (times of confession) is advisable ; finally in 6 it is 
proved that a dispensation exempting from confession (for ever) 
can on no account whatever be given ; even the Pope can as 
little be exempted from confession as he can declare that a man 
can be saved without baptism.3 

Q. 7 treats of the " quidditas confessionis,'* i.e., of its nature, 
as " disclosure of the latent disease in the hope of pardon " 
(aperitio latentis morbi spe veniae) ; and also as an " exercise 
of virtue " (actus virtutis) * and as an " exercise of the virtue of 
penitence " (actus virtutis paenitentiae). Q. 8 is specially im- 
portant, for it develops the doctrine as to the administrator 
(" minister ") of confession. Here it is at once said in Art i : 
" The grace that is conferred in the Sacraments descends from 
the head to the members, and so he only is the minister of the 
Sacraments in which grace is given, who has a ministry in con- 
confidently proved yet. Even Bonaventura did not trust himself to represent the 
order to confess as originating in the institution and command of Christ. 

1 " Sicut aliquis per hoc quod baptismum petit se ministris ecclesise subicit, ad quos 
pertinet dispensatio sacramenti, ita etiam per hoc quod confitetur peccatum suum se 
ministro ecclesiae subicit, ut per sacramentum pt'cnitentise ab eo dispensatum re- 
missionem consequatui, qui congruum remedium adhibere non potest, nisi peccatum 
cognoscat, quod fit per confessionem peccantis. Et ideo confessio est de necessitate 
salutis ejus, qui in peccatum actuale mortale cecidit." 

2 The ** positive" law is the decree of the Council of 121 5 ; further, every one of 
course must know himself to be a sinner ; still further, one must confess in order to 
come with greater reverence to the Eucharist ; finally, in order that the shepherd may 
be able to superintend his flock and protect it from the wolf. 

' ** Sicut non potest dispensari in jure naturali, ita nee in jure positivo divino." 

^ Art. 2 : "ad virtutem pertinet, ut aliquis ore confiteatur, quod corde tenet" 



254 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

nection with the true body of Christ (qui habet ministerium 
super corpus Christi verum), which belongs only to the priest 
who is able to consecrate the Eucharist, and therefore as in the 
Sacrament of Penance grace is conferred, the priest only is 
minister of this Sacrament, and therefore to him only must be 
made the sacramental confession (sacramentalis confessio) which 
ought to be made to the minister of the Church." But in Art 2 
it is conceded, that " in case of necessity a layman supplies the 
place of the priest, so that it is possible to make confession to 
him " (in necessitate etiam laicus vicem sacerdotis supplet, ut 
ei confessio fieri possit).' The necessity of confessing venial 
sins to the priest is denied (Art. 3), and this view continued to 
be held, as even Duns assented to it. Confession must take 
place before the Parochus (priest of the parish); only by author- 
ity of one of higher rank (" ex superioris privilegio *') and in 
case of death (" in casu mortis ") (Art. 4-6) may this be departed 
from. In Q. 9, on the " quality of confession," Art. 2, which 
treats of the *' integrity of the confession,"' and Art 3, which 
forbids confession " through another or in writing," are specially 
important.3 Q. 10 deals with the effect of confession, and 11 
with the reticence of the minister, which is very strongly accen- 
tuated (" God covers the sin of him who surrenders himself in 
penitence ; hence this also should be indicated in the Sacrament 
of Penance (hoc oportet in sacramento paenitentiae significari), 
and thus it is of the essence of the Sacrament (de necessitate sacra- 
menti), that one conceal confession, and he sins as a violator of 

^ Yet such confession is not sacramental in the strict sense. 

3 As one must disclose to the physician the whole disease, and this is the presup- 
position of being healed, so is it also with confession. **Ideo de necessitate con- 
fessionis est, quod homo omnia peccata conHteatur qua in memoria habet, quod si non 
faciat, non est confessio, sed confessionis simulatio." Mortal sins that have been for- 
gotten must be confessed in the confession that follows. A voluminous work on the 
history of auricular confession has been written by Lea, 2 vols. (English), Phila< 
delphia, 1896. I have not yet been able to look into it. 

'To describe the qualities of confession the scholastic stanza was framed (see 
Art. 4) : 

"Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis, 
Atque frequens, nudo, discreta, libens, verecunda, 
Integra, secreta, lacrimabilis, accelerata, 
Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata." 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: PENANCE. 2$$ 

the Sacraments who reveals confession " (et tanquam violator 
sacrament! peccat, qui confessionem revelat). 

These definitions of Thomas underwent, indeed, many modi- 
fications in the Scotist School, but in substance they became 
permanent. 

Confession is made before the priest ; it is followed by abso- 
lution. We have already pointed out how much time elapsed 
before the new ideas became currently accepted, (i) that con- 
fession must be made to the priest,^ (2) that the priest confers 
absolution as proceeding from himself (in the exercise of divine 
authority) » and as effectual (Matth. 16, John 20). The power 
of absolution, which is given to every priest, appears complicated 
because it is connected with the power of jurisdiction (in its 
application), which, as is well known, was graded. Here also 
Thomas was the first to furnish the theory ; for even for 
Halesius and Bonaventura there are still points of uncertainty, 
which were due to the continued influence of the older view. 
In the Summa P. III., Suppl. Q. 17-24, Thomas has developed 
the doctrine of the power of the keys (potestas clavium), and has 
shown that the priest's absolution is the " causa instrumentalis *' 
(in a physical sense) of the forgiveness of sin. But in the Scotist 
School, which in general relaxed the connection between the 
Sacrament and the res sacramenti, only a moral communication, 
through absolution, of forgiveness of sin was assumed, the priest 
being held as moving God by means of his absolution to fulfil his 
•* covenant." The priests' power of jurisdiction has also been 
dealt with by Thomas, and from his time it was always treated 
in connection with the theory of absolution, although it leads 
in a quite different direction, is really calculated indeed to 
weaken confidence in the power of every priest to absolve. It 
was asserted, that is to say, by the majority, though not by all, 
that the power of jurisdiction is also ex jure divino (by divine 
authority), and that the restrictions therefore on the permissible 
conferring of absolution were not merely ecclesiastical regulations, 
but had divine right. But in the Middle Ages there had by 
this time developed itself an immense system of special per- 

* On the exception, see above. 

' Not ex potestate auctoritatis or excellentise, but minbterii. 



256 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

missions, reservations, etc., which had their basis in arbitrary 
decisions of the Popes. The position, though vigorously con- 
tested, continued to be held as valid, that ecclesiastical superiors 
" in conveying judicial power in foro intemo can by reservation 
make any kind of restrictions in respect of duration, place, and 
object." Was it not inevitable that by such procedure, in deal- 
ing with which it was impossible for the layman to find his way, 
confusion and uncertainty should arise about the Sacrament ? » 

^ The most important propositions of Thomas regarding absolution are the follow- 
ing : Suppl. Q. 17, Art. I : ''In corporalibus clavis dicitur instrumentum, quo 
ostium aperitur, regni autem ostium nobis per peccatum clauditur et quantum ad 
maculam et quantum ad reatum poense, ct ideo potestas qua tale obstaculum remove* 
tur, dicitur clavis, H%c autem potestas est in divina trinitate per auctoritatem, et 
ideo dicitur a quihusdam, quod habeat clavem auctoritatis, sed in Christo homim fuit 
ht£c potestas ad removendum pnedictum obstaculum per meritum passionis quae etiam 
dicitur januam aperire. £t ideo dicitur secundum quosdam habere clavem excellentise. 
Et quia ex latere Christi dormientis in cruce sacramenta fluxerunt, ex quibus ecclesia 
fabricatur, ideo in sacramentis ecclesi^e efficacia passionb manet, et propter Imc eiiam 
ministris ecclesitr, qui sunt dispensatores sacrafttentorum^ potestas aliqua ad prtsdictum 
obstaculum removendum est collata, non propria, sed virtute divina et passionis Christi, 
et h?ec potestas metaphorice clavis ecclesize dicitur, quae est clavis ministerii,^^ 
Especially important is Q. 18, Art. I : " Sacramenta continent ex sanctificatione in- 
visibilem gratiam. Sed hujusmodi sanctificatio quandoque ad necessitatem sacramend 
requiritur tam in materia quam in ministro, sicut patet in confirmatione. Quandoque 
autem de necessitate sacramenti non requiritur nisi sanctificatio materia, sicut in bap- 
tismo, quia non habet minisirum deierminatum quantum ad sui necessitatem et tunc 
tola VIS sacramentalis consistit in materia. Quandoque vero de necessitate sacramenti 
requiritur consecratio vel sanctificatio ministri sine aliqua sanctiHcatione materix, et 
tunc iota vis scuramentalis consistit in ministro^ sicut est in pcenitentia . . . Per 
pixrnitentiae sacramentum nunquam datur gratia, nisi prsepaiatio adsit vel prius fiierit 
Unde virtus clavium operntur ad culpoe remissionem, vel in voto existens, vel in actu 
se cxercens . . . sed non agit sicut principale agens, sed sicut instrumentum, non 
quidem pertingens ad ipsam gratia: susceptionem causandam etiam instrumentaliter* 
sed disponens ad gratiam, per quam fit remissio culpse. Unde solus deus remittit per 
se culpam et in virtute ejus agit . . . sacerdos ut instrumentum animatum 
. . . ut minister. Et sic patet, quod potestas clavium ordinatur aliquo modo ad 
remissionem culpse non sicut causans, sed sicut disponens ad eam ; unde si ante absolu* 
tionem aliquis non fuisset perfecte dispositus ad gratiam suscipiendam, i/i ipsa con- 
fissione et absolutione sacratnentali gratiam consequeretitr^ si obicem non poneret." 
In what follows it is now proved that the priestly clavis cannot possibly relate only to 
the remission of penalty (** ut quidam dicunt "). In Art. 2 it is then shown thai " ex 
vi clavium non tota poena remittitur, sed aliqiud de poena temporali, cujus reatus p)OSt 
absolutionem a poena setema renianere potuit, nee solum de poena iUa, quam paenitens 
hal)et in confitendo, quia sic confessio et sacramentalis absolutio non esset nisi in 
onus, quod non competit sacramentis novae legis, sed etiam de ilia poena, quae in pur- 
gatorio debetur, aliquid remittitur. " With regard to the efficacy of the absolution t 



CHAP. IL] doctrine OF THE SACRAMENTS : PENANCE. 25/ 

Absolution is preceded by the appointment of satisfaction if 
such has not already been made. Here the priest acts as a 
skilled physician (medicus peritus) and impartial judge (judex 
aequus). The practice of satisfactions (Church-penances) is very 
old (see vol. v., p. 268 f , 324 ff.), the giving it a mechanical form 
and the over-estimation of it — by putting it alongside contritio 
as a part of penance — are in theory comparatively new. The 
idea is now this, that satisfactio, as a portion of the Sacrament 
of Penance, is the necessary manifestation of sorrow through 
works that are fitted to furnish a certain satisfaction to the in- 
jured God (and thereby become the occasion also for limiting 
the temporal penalties). In baptism there is forgiveness of the 

distinction also of this kind was drawn : God cancels the reatus culpae, Christ the rea- 
tus pcenae seternae ; both are effectually wrought by the minister sacramenti in the ex- 
ercise of plenary divine power, and he has at the same time the right belonging to him 
to give abatement in his absolving of the reatus pcenae temporalis. In Q. 19, Art. 3, 
Thomas shows that the clavis ordinis is given only to the priest, while the clavis juris- 
dictionis — quae non clavis cceli est, sed quaedam dispositio ad eam ! — may be granted 
also to others. In Q. 19, Art. 5, it is explained that even the bad priest retains the 
keys ; on the other hand, it is said in Art. 6 of the heretical and schismatic priests that 
in them "manet clavium potestas quantum ad essentiam, sed usus impeditur ex 
defectu materiae. Cum enim usus clavium in utente pnelationem requirat respectu 
ejus in quem utitur, propria materia in quam exeicetur usus clavium est homo sub- 
ditus. Et quia per ordinationem ecclesiae unus subditur alteri, ideo etiam per ecclesise 
praelatos potest subtrahi alicui ille, qui erat ei subjectus. Unde cum ecclesia ha^eti- 
cos et schismaticos et alios hujusmodi privet subtrahendo subditos vel simpliciter vel 
quantum ad aliquid, quantum ad hoc quod privati sunt, non possunt usum clavium 
habere." In Q. 20, Art. i. it is explained that only to the Pope, as he possesses the 
indistincta potestas super omnes, does there fall the application of the power of the 
keys with respect to all, while it is said of the others that " non in quolibet uti (po- 
testatem clavium) possunt, sed in eos tantum, qui eis in sortem venerunt, nisi in ne- 
cessitatis articulo." But the priest cannot always absolve even his subditus ; for ali- 
qua peccata — if the power is not conferred upon him — fall to be dealt with by his su- 
perior (Art. 2). A priest can absolve even a bishop ; for ** potestas clavium, quan- 
tum est de se, se extendit ad omnes" (Art. 3). Questions 21-24 treat of excommuni- 
cation, with which the power of jurisdiction has specially to do (Q. 21, Art. 4 : "Even 
an unjust excommunication habet effectum suum ; in the case of a mortal sin it must 
be respected ; sed si quis pro falso crimine in judido probato excommunicatus est» 
tunc, si humiliter sustinet, humilitatis meritum recompensat excommunicationis dam- 
num." Q. 22, Art. 1 : ''Of the priests only bishops arid majores praelati can ex- 
communicate, qui habent jurisdictionem in foro judiciali, ad quod spectat causa, quae 
obligat hominem in comparatione ad alios homines '* : but even those who are not 
priests can excommunicate [because it is not a question of gratia], if they have the 
jurisdictio in foro contentioso). 

It 



25 8 . HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

sin, along with the penalty, without any satisfaction ; but God 
requires from the baptised person a certain satisfaction — although 
both before and now the merit of Christ is the decisive thing — 
partly because the man can render a certain satisfaction, partly 
because it serves to make him better, and is fitted to protect him 
against further sins. But this satisfaction is only of real value 
when ,it is rendered in a state of grace (caritas). Hence the 
man guilty of mortal sin must first be absolved, that he may 
then furnish the satisfaction which is required of him, and which 
he has promised to render prior to absolution. But there is a 
certain value also in works that are not performed in a state of 
grace (caritas) ; even they are not without their weight as satis- 
factions, and can abridge the temporal penalties of sin. The 
satisfying works are especially prayer, fasting, and alms; for 
they deliver man from his natural disposition. But the School- 
men also justified the practice that originated in the wilder times 
of the Germanic Church, according to which satisfaction can, 
under certain circumstances, be rendered by others, because 
Christians are united to one another as members of one body. 
And this leads us to the subject of indulgences.^ 

' Thomas treats satisfactio in Suppl. Q. 12-15. In Q. 12, Arts. I and 2, satis- 
factio is shown to be actus viitutis et justitiae ; in Art. 3 the old definition is justified, 
that satisfacere is both ** honorem debitum deo impendere" and ** praeservare culpam 
futuram." In Q. 13 it is shown that man is not in a position to satisfy God quoad 
aequalitatem quantitatis, but certainly quoad aequalitatem proportionis (**ex hoc 
quod per liberum arbitrium agit, deo satisfacere potest, quia quamvis dei sit prout a 
deo sibi concessum, tamen libere ei ttaditum est, ut ejus dominus sit ") ; in Art. 2 
there follows the proof that one can render satisfactio for another ; yet the thesis has 
its guarding clauses (** Poena satisfactoria est ad duo ordinata, scil. ad solutionem 
debiii et ad medicinam pro peccato vitando.'* In the latter regard one can help 
another only per accidens, in so far as by good works he can procure for the other an 
augmentum gratiae : **sed hoc est per modum meriti magis quam per modum satis- 
factionis. Sed quantum ad solutionem debiti, unus potest pro alio satis£u:eie, 
dummodo sit in caritate, ut opera ejus satisfactoria esse possint"). In Q. 14 the 
quality of the satisfactio is treated ; here the questions as to the necessity for the 
man's being in a state of caritas are discussed and answered with still greater strict- 
ness ("Quidem dixerunt" — Art. 2 — "quod postquam omnia peccataper pixecedentem 
contritionem remissa sunt, si aliquis ante satisfaclionem peractam in pcccatum 
decidat et in peccato existcns satisfaciat, satisfactio talis ei valet, ita quod si in peccato 
illo morerctur, in inferno de illis peccatis non puniretnr. Sed hoc non potest esse, 
quia in satisfactionc oportet quod amicitia restituta etiam justitias aeqoalitas restituatnr 
cujus contraiium amicitiam tollit. ^Equalitas autem in satisfactione ad deum non est 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE. OF THE SACRAMENTS: INDULGENCES. 259 

Indulgences. The doctrine of indulgence stands inwardly 
in closest relation to the doctrine of attritio ; outwardly 
it appears as a consequence of the doctrine of satisfactio.^ The- 
oretically it has nothing to do with the reatus culpae (moral 
culpability) and the reatus poenae aeternae (liability to eternal 
death) ; in practice there not only arose, in the Middle Ages, 
serious irregularities, which the Catholics (see the Council of 

secundum sequivalentiain, sed magis secundum acceptationem ipsius. Et ideo oportet, 
etiamsi jam offensa sit dimissa per pnecedentem contritionem, qaod opera satisfactoria 
sint deo accepta, quod dat eis caritas, et ideo sine caritate opera fcuta non stmt satis- 
factoria" but in Art. 5 it is conceded that bona opera extra caritatem facta diminuunt 
poenam infemi, t.^., as Augustine says, moderate damnation and limit the temporal 
penalties. Q. 15 treats of the means of satisfactio ("satisfactio sive referatur ad 
praeteritam oflfensam sive ad fiituram culpam per pcenalia opera fieri asseritur "). 
Here the following shocking justification of the three penal means of satisfaction is 
given (Art. 3) : " satisfactio debet esse talis, per quam aliquid nobis subtrahamus ad 
honorem dei, nos autem non habemus nisi tria bona, scil. bona anima^ bona corporis 
et bona. /ortuna 9 scil. exteriora. Ex bonis quidem fortunse subtrahimus nobb aliquid 
per eleemosynara, sed ex bonis corporis per jejunium. Ex bonis autem animse non 
oportet quod aliquid subtrahamus nobis quantum ad essentiam vel quantum ad 
diminutioncm ipsorum, quia per ea efficimur deo accept!, sed per hoc quod ea sub- 
mittimus deo totaliter, et hoc fit per orationem. . . . Secundum quosdam duplex, 
est oraiio ; quadani qua est contemplcUivorum^ quorum conversatio in calis est, et talis 
quia totaliter est delectabilis non est satisfactoria. Alia est, qua pro peccatis gemitus 
fundit et talis habet panam et est satisfactionis pars. Vel dicendum et melius, quod 
qualibet oratio habet rationem satisfactionis, quia qwimvis habet suamtatem spiritus^ 
habet tamen afflictionem camis,^* The importance in respect of theory of satisfaction 
as expiation of temporal penalties of sins that are not remitted does not, for the rest, 
come specially into view for Thomas, in addition to the other ends which satisfactions 
contemplate. Indeed, it is even granted in abstracto that contritio can be so 
perfect that all penalty is condoned by God. Yet as a fact satisfactions were regarded 
almost exclusively from the point of view of expiation of the penalties of sin (and these 
were chiefly the future penalties of purgatory). It was here that indulgences came in, 
and it was here that there entered the very pardonable misunderstanding of the laity 
that satisfactions in themselves deliver from all penalties for sin — and it was only 
with this deliverance that the majority took to do. 

^ For the literature see above (p. 250, note 4). Add also Schneider, Die Ablasse, 7 
ed., 188 1. Thomas, Suppl., Qs. 25-27. Gotz, Studien z. Gesch. d. Buss-sacraments 
in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gcsch., Vol. 15, p. 321 ff.. Vol. 16, p. 541 ff. These investiga- 
tions, which start from an examination of a series of forged Bulls on indulgences, 
illustrate the history of the development of indulgences, give important disclosures as 
to the Bulls connected with the Crusades, and treat also the papal cases of reservation 
in the penance discipline (cf. Hausmann, Gesch. der papstl. Reservatfalle, 1868). 
The importance which belonged in the course of the development of indulgences to 
the peregrinations to the sacred places, or to Rome (imposed as penance works), 
comes prominently to view in these studies. 



260 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

Trent) admit, but these irregularities still continue, and nothing 
is done to check the over-estimation of indulgences.^ 

Scholasticism found indulgences already in existence, a great 
increase of them having taken place especially in the period of 
the Crusades. It simply framed its theory according to the 
practice. If the doctrine of satisfaction was already an ex- 
tremely arbitrary one, which, in spite of all saving clauses, 
necessarily endangered the importance of repentance, the 
doctrine of indulgence became arbitrariness intensified, and 
exercised an extremely ruinous influence on religion and mor- 
ality. The practice and theory of indulgences can, no doubt, 
be idealised, nay, it is possible indeed to justify, in a certain 
way, the idealised practice.- Were that not possible it would 
be incredible that so many earnest Christians have defended 
indulgences. But the scholastic theology by no means idealised 
them. 

The practice of indulgences has its root in the commutations. 
The exchange of more arduous for easier penitential acts was 
called indulgence.* The penance performances were here 
taken into consideration in their significance for the expiation 
of the temporal penalties of sin. The heaviest temporal pen- 
alties for sin were those of purgatory : for the earthly penalties 
for sin were, on the one hand, as experience taught, unavoidable, 
and on the other hand, even though one thought of year-long 

1 That even in theory there were defects in the Middle Ages is acknowledged by 
Catholic witnesses themselves (see Schneider, p. lo, note 2) : ** Certain letters of in> 
dulgence are found which speak at the same time of forgiveness of guilt and of 
penalty (a culpa et a poena) ; but, according to the opinion of Benedict XIV., these 
indulgences are spurious, and must be ascribed to those collectors of alms who pro- 
claimed indulgences and at the same time collected alms previous to the Synod of 
Trent." Of course on the Catholic side an appeal is readily made to the circam- 
stance that ** peccatum " was also used for ** penalty for sin," " atonement for sin.**^ 
This meaning can really be proved ; but whether it suits all cases in which indal- 
gences and sin are brought into conjunction is more than questionable. 

3 To defend at the same time both the satisfactions and the indulgences is certainly 
difficult If the former are due to the glad eagerness of the heart, delivered from 
guilt, to exercise the love bestowed on it, the thought of the indulgence will not 
arise. On the other hand, if indulgences are the remission of the temporal penalties 
of sin, they must not be brought into relation with the idealised satisfactions. 

' Such exchanges were also necessarily introduced, because the old penitential 
demands were in part exorbitantly high. 



CHAP. IL] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: INDULGENCES. 26 1 

penances, they were of no weight as compared with the long 
and painful penalties in purgatory. It was a refined practice 
of the Church, which had gradually developed itself, to comfort 
men in an easy way about hell by means of grace (Sacrament 
of Penance), and, on the other hand, to terrify them by means 
of purgatory. Was this purgatory, then, not also a hell ? But 
how skilfully was the whole idea derived from studying the 
moral feelings of the homines attriti (men practising attri- 
tion)! ^ They did not really believe in hell, because the gravity 
of sin had not been disclosed to them, and because, accordingly, 
they were not to be constrained to a life in God. Hence tlie 
Church shut up hell by means of the Sacrament of Penance, But 
that at some period in the future it would, for a long time, go 
very badly with them, and that one day they must expiate all 
their sins, — that they believed. Therefore the Church opened 
purgatory.^ That this purgatory could be made less severe or 
briefer, these homines attriti were also very ready to believe ; 
for they lived, all of them, in the thought that good perfor- 
mances simply compensate for delinquencies, and even the 
" gallows contrition " is not so enduring as to constrain men to 
practise serious repentance — even in the sense of steady self- 
denial and heroic action. Hence the Church discloses indulgences. 
In them she shows to the man of lower type her real power ; 
for the magic of the Sacrament of Penance has certainly not yet 
given him complete rest. He has a remnant of the moral feel- 
ing that something must be done on his part in order that for- 
giveness may become credible and sure. " Faith " and " con- 

^ The indulgences were most truly the refuge of the Christians of lower type, 
although the most pious also made use of them. It is related of Tetzel that when, in 
the small town of Belitz, near Berlin, no one would buy indulgences from him, he 
said indignantly, that those in the town must either be ** right pious people or des- 
perate villains." This is told by Creusing in his " Markische Furstenchronik," 
edited by Holtze, p. 159, the informant being the Miller of Belitz, Meister Jacob (see 
Heidemann, Die Reform, in der Mark Brandenburg, p. 77). 

* After these words were long written down, I came across Rousseau's description 
in his Confessions of the demonic Madame de Warens. It is here said (German 
edition by Denhard, I., p. 291) : ** . . . although she did not believe in a hell, she 
strangely refused to let her faith in purgatory be taken from her." Rousseau regards 
it as strange, because, in spite of his change of fciith, he was never able to free himself 
entirely from the Protestant influences of his youth. 



262 HISTORY OF DOGMA, [CHAP. IL 

trition " he neither can nor will practise, but something he will 
willingly do. Here the Church now intervenes, and says to him 
that his poor performance can be converted and transformed by 
the power of the Church into something so lofty that by means 
of it the penalties of sin in purgatory are abolished. The man 
wishes to know no more. What has still to happen can cause 
him little concern, and the Church itself says to him that if he 
IS well provided with the Sacrament of Penance, what follows 
will not affect him.^ Attritio, sacramentum paenitentiae, indul- 
gentia, — these form the Catholic triad. What was to be done 
for the indulgence was the only burdensome thing here; but 
even this was made very easy. Thus the indulgence became a 

1 The doctrine of purgatory (purgatorium) was a settled matter for the Schoolmen, 
and was energetically maintained against the Greeks from the thirteenth to the 
fifteenth century. This purgatory, which is for departed souls who are absolved but 
have not made satisfaction for all sins, exists, according to the Latin view, till the 
judgment of the world (the Greeks, so far as they recognised it at all, put it after the 
judgment), or for a shorter time. The soub of the righteous, who need no further 
purification, attain at once to the vision of God (the counter doctrine of John XXII. 
was rejected). More particularly, the Schoolmen taught that there are five dwelling- 
places of departed souls : (i) hell, to which those guilty of mortal sin at once pass ; 
(2) the limbus infantium, 1.^., of children who have died unbaptised ; (3) the limbus 
patrum, t.^., of the Old Testament saints; (4) purgatorium ; (5) heaven; see the 
detailed statement in Thomas, Suppl., Q. 69. That the souls of the pious have 
knowledge of what takes place on earth, and intercede for their earthly brethren, has 
been shown by the Lombard (Sent IV., Dist. 45 G) : " Cur non credamus et animas 
sanctorum dei faciem contemplantium in ejus veritate intelligere preces hominum, 
quae et implendse sunt vel non ? . . . Intercedunt ergo pro nobis ad deum sancti, et 
merito^ dum illorum merita suffragantur nobis, et affeciu^ dum vota nostra cupiunt 
impleri. . . . Oramus ergo, ut intercedant pro nobis, t.^., ut merita eorum suffra- 
gentur nobis, et ut ipsi velint bonum nostrum, quia eis volentibus deus vult et ita 
fiet" ; similarly Thomas (Suppl., Q. 73 or 74, Art. l). The existence of purgatory 
is thus established by Thomas (I.e., Q. 69, Art. 7): "Satis potest constare purga- 
torium esse post banc vitam ; si enim per contritionem deleta culpa non toUitur ex 
toto reatus pcenae nee etiam semper venialia dimissis mortalibus toUuntur, et justitia 
hoc exigit, ut peccatum per poenam debitam ordinetur, oportet quod ille, qui post 
contritionem de peccato et absolutionem decedit ante satisfactionem debitam post 
banc vitam puniatur. £t ideo illi qui purgatorium negant, contra divinam justitiam 
loquuntur, et propter hoc erroneum est et a fide alicnum (there follows a forged passage 
from Gregory of Nyssa's Works, representing that the whole Church so teaches). 
Quod non potest nisi de illis, qui sunt in purgatorio, intelligi ; ecclesiae autem 
autoritati quicunque resistit, haeresim incurrit." Yet opposition to this doctrine never 
ceased, and it became very active in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Wyclif 
and Wessel strenuously adopted the hostile attitude of the Medixval sects. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: INDULGENCES. 263 

caricature (persiflage) of Christianity as the religion of re- 
demption through Christ. 

The theory of the Schoolmen is as follows : After there had 
been uncertainty till far on in the thirteenth century as to 
whether the indulgences did not relate merely to the ecclesias- 
tical penalties imposed by the priest, Thomas laid it down that 
they apply in general to the liability to temporal penalty (reatus 
temporalis poenae) (" on earth and in purgatory "). The 
righteousness of God demands that no sin shall remain " inordi- 
nate*' (inordinata), and that man shall also perform what he can 
perform. He is obliged, accordingly, even as absolved, to dis- 
charge the temporal penalties of sin. But what the merit of 
Christ does not do of itself and directly, inasmuch as in the 
Sacrament it cancels only the reatus culpae et poenae, it does out- 
with the Sacrament as merit, Christ,* that is to say, has done 
more by His suffering than was required for redemption, and 
even many saints have acquired for themselves merit which 
God's grace rewards. This surplus merit (thesaurus operum 
supererogatoriorum [treasury of supererogatory works]) must 
necessarily fall to the benefit of the Church as the body of 
Christ, since neither Christ nor the saints can derive further 
advantage from it. But alongside the Sacrament of Penance it 
cannot have another effect than to moderate, abridge, or cancel 
the temporal penalties of sin. It can be applied only to those 
who, in penitent spirit, have been absolved after making con- 
fession, and it is administered in the first instance by the Pope 
as the head of the Church. Yet by him a partial power of ad- 
ministration can be conveyed to others. The regular mode of 
making the application is by requiring for the indulgence a 
comparatively very small performance (" eleemosynae," /.^., 
penance money.)^ 

* A thesaurus meritorum which the Church administers was first adopted by 
Halesius (see the passages in Munscher, I.e., p. 290 fif.). The theory received a fixed 
construction from Albertus and Thomas. In Suppl. Q. 25, Art. I, the latter gives 
the following exposition : " Ab omnibus conceditur indulgentias aliquid valere, quia 
impium esset dicete^ quod ecclesia aliquid vanefaceret. Sed quidam dicunt, quod non 
valent ad absolvendum a reatu pcenae, quam quis in purgatorio secundum judicium dei 
meretur, sed valent ad absolvendum ab obligatione qua sacerdos obligavit psenitentem 
ad pcenam aliquam vel ad quam etiam obligatur ex canonum statutis. Sed haec opinio 



264 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

Now this theory — keeping practice quite out of view — still 
admitted in detail of very different modifications (nuances). It 

non videtur vera. Primo quia est expresse contra privilegiom Petro datum cui dictum 
est, ut quod in terra remitteret, in ccelo remitteretar. Unde remissio, quae fit 
quantum ad forum ecclesiae valet, valet etiam quantum ad forum dei. £t praeterea 
ecclesia hujusmodi indulgentias faciens magis damnificaret, quam adjuvaret, quit 
remitteret ad graviores pcenas, scil. purgatorii, absolvendo a paenitentiis injunctis. Et 
ideo aliter dicendum, quod vaUnt et quantum ad forum ecclesia et quantum ad 
judicium dei^ ad remissionem pcena residua: post contritionem et confessionem et 
absolutionem^ sive sit injuncta, sive non. Ratio autem, quare valere possint, est 
unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi in operibus pxnitentise supererogaveiont ad 
mensuram debitorum suorum • . . quorum meritorum tanta est copia, quod omnem 
poenam debitam nunc viventibus excedunt et prcecipuct propter meritum Christi^ quod 
etsi in sacramentis operatur, non tanun efficacia ejus in sacramentis includitur^ sed 
sua infinitate excedit efficaciam sacramentorum. Dictum est autem supra, quod unus 
pro alio satisfacere potest ; sancti autem, in quibus superabundantia operum sanciifi- 
cationis invenitur, non determin^e pro isto qui remissione indiget, hujusmodi opera 
fecerunt, alias absque omni indulgentia remissionem consequerentur, sed communiter 
pro tota ecclesia, sicut apostolus ait (Coloss. I.), et sic ptsedicta merita sunt communia 
totius ecclesise. Ea autem quae sunt alicujus multitudinis communia, distribuuntur 
singulis de multitudine secundum arbitrium ejus qui multitudini pretest,^* Note also 
cautious remarks : '* Remissio quse per indulgentias ht, non toUii quantitatem 
poenx ad culpam, quia pro culpa unius alius sponte poenam sustinuit." — ** Hie qui 
indulgentias suscipit, non absolvitur, simpliciter loquendo, a debito poena;, sed datur 
ei, unde debitum solvat." — "Non est in destructionem indulgentias dare, nisi 
inordinate dentur. Tamen consulendum est eis qui indulgentias consequuntur, ne 
propter hoc ab operibus paenitentiae injunctis abstineant, ut etiam ex his remedium 
consequentur, quamvis a debito poense esse immunes, et pnxcipue quia quandoque 
sunt plurium debitores quam credant" In Art. 2 those are confuted who assert that 
the indulgences "non tantum valent, quantum pronuntiantur," only so far avail for 
the individual "quantum fides et devotio sua exigit." It is proved, "indulgentias 
simpliciter tantum valent quantum pnedicantur, dummodo ex parte dantis sit auc- 
toritas et ex parte recipientis caritas et ex parte causje pietas." Also : **quaecunque 
causa adsit, quae in utililatem ecclesiae et honorem dei vergat, sufficiens est ratio 
indulgentias fisiciendi . . . (nam) merita ecclesiae semper superabundant." It is 
further shown that indulgences belong to the clavis jurisdictionis (are not sacramental), 
and therefore " effeclus ejus arbitrio hominis subjacet" (also authorised legati non 
sacerdotes can dispense indulgences). To the question whether indulgences can be 
dispensed pro temporali subsidio, it is answered in Art. 3 that this is not possible 
simpliciter, "sed pro temporalibus ordinatis ad spiritualia, sicut est repressio inimi- 
corum ecclesiie, qui pacem ecclesiae perturbant, sicut constructio ecclesianim et 
pontium et aliarum eleemosynarum largitio." Q. 26 treats of those who can dispense 
indulgences ("papa potest facere prout vult"), Q. 27 of the receivers of indulgences. 
Here in Art. I the thesis is contested of those who assert that to those guilty of mortal 
sin indulgences are of benefit, not for forgiveness of sins, but yet ad acquirendnm 
gratiam : " in omnibus indulgentiis fit mentio de vere contritio et confcssis." In ArL 
3 it is shown that the indulgence does not avail for one who has not done what the 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: INDULGENCES. 26$ 

could also be conceived of more strictly or more laxly. In 
particular, the demand that one must be in a contrite frame of 
mind could be lowered to an extraordinary degree.^ But not 

indulgence is given for. Compare with this also Q. 74, where in Art. 10 the question 
is answered whether indulgences are of use for the dead. The answer is that they 
are of no direct use, as the dead cannot do what the indulgences are given for. On 
the other hand they are of indirect use, that is, if the indulgence formula runs thus : 
** Quicumque fecerit hoc vel illud, ipse et pater ejus vel quicumque^alius ei adjunctus 
in purgatorio detentus, tantum de indulgentia hahebit." "Talis indulgentia non 
solum vivo sed etiam mortuo proderit. Non enim est aliqua ratio quare ecclesia 
transferre possit communia merita quibus indulgentiae innituntur in vivos et non in 
tnortuos/' The indulgences, moreover, do not work simply per modum suffragii ; 
they are effectual. Yet arbitrariness on the part of the Pope in rescuing souls from 
purgatory must be limited by this, that there must always be a causa conveniens 
indulgentias faciendi ; but such is always to be found. It is furthermore probable 
that the recognition of a thesaurus meritorum had a long course of historic preparation 
in the history of religion ; see Siegfried in Hilgenfeld*s Ztschr., 1884, Part 3, p. 356 
{also Gott Gel. Anz., 1881, St. 12 and 13) : **The doctrine of a treasury of good works 
from which indemnifications can be derived for the sins of others came originally into 
Judaism under Iranian influences, as is known to have been the case with so much 
else in the later Jewish dogmatics. If we compare what appears regarding this in 
Spiegel's ** Eranische Alterthumskunde " with what is to be found in Weber*s System 
der alts}magcgalen palast. Theol., 1880, p. 280 ff., that this is a fact we shall not be 
able to doubt. Now as this doctrine, after being first brought forward by Alexander 
of Hales, owed its recognition within the Catholic Church ciiiefly to Thomas Aquinas, 
of whom it is also well known that he transcribed Maimonides (Merx, Die Prophetic 
des Joel, 1879, pp. 354-367), the suspicion at once arises that this doctrine also was 
derived from Jewisti sources. The more exact proof that this was actually so we 
reserve, as it would lead us too far afield here." Against this conjecture Giidemann 
(Jiid. Litt.-Blatt., 21 Jahrg., 29 Oct., 1890) has raised objections, and has tried to 
show that the "merit of the Fathers" ("Sechus Owaus") is something else and much 
more harmless. Yet identity no one has asserted, but only a historical connection. 
The thesaurus meritorum has been developed in directions, and has found applica- 
tions, of which certainly Judaism did not think. But my conviction that a historical 
connection exists has not been shaken by GUdemann's objections. For the rest I do 
not presume to be a judge in this matter, but I would like to point out something 
akin. In the "History of Joseph" preserved in the Syriac, which is said to have 
been composed by Basil of Ciesarea, and yet contains only Jewish Ilaggada, and, so 
far as I can see, nothing Christian (and so apparently is of Jewish origin), one reads 
(see Weinberg, Gesch. Josefs, angeblich verfasst v. Basil ius d. Gr. Berlin, 1893, p. 
53) : ** Potipher*s wife said : But if thou art afraid of sin, as thou hast asserted, then 
take gold and silver, as much as thou wilt, and give to the poor ; and God will forgive 
thee thy guilt." It is a woman under the devil's influence whom the narrator 
represents as speaking, and he certainly disapproved of the woman's speech ; but it 
shows undoubtedly that such reflexions were not far off. The abusus — and that is 
condemned also by a pious Catholic — is disapproved. 

^A large amount of material on the lax and strict theories in Bratke, I.e. One 



266 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

only did that happen ; the practice, as has already been in- 
dicated, struck out on quite different paths. With more or less 
of design, it left the question in obscurity as to what really was 
cancelled by the indulgence (see the ambiguous expression " for 
the salvation of the soul," and others similar) ; it substituted 
for the demand for true sorrow and honest resolution to reform 
a reference to the Sacrament of Penance, or it was quite silent 
upon the demand ; it gave to the indulgence an interpretation in 
which the power of the Church and the priest thrust aside the 
theoretic basis of the merit of Christ, and, finally, it en- 
couraged the shocking folly of believing that, by the means of 
religion, man can provide himself with temporal advantages, 
and that beyond this, the spirit and power of religion are 
summed up in warding off just punishments. With all this 
there is still unmentioned the ruinous effect that must have 
been produced by the frequently shameful use of the indul« 
gence money, and by the whole speculative system of the Curia. 
The Sacrament of Penance culminated unfortunately in these 
indulgences, and without incurring the charge of deriding, one 
may state concisely the final word of this system thus: 
Every man who surrenders himself to the Catholic Churchy and 
who^for some reason^ is not quite satisfied with the inner state of 
his /leart, can secure salvation and deliverance from all eternal 
and temporal penalties — if he acts with shrewdness and finds a 
skilful priest,^ 

thing that made a principal diffeience was the question as to whether indulgmces^ 
were not of use even for those guilty of mortal sin ad acquirendam gratiam, or, 
whether they could not be given beforehand to such persons, to be used by them 
when they felt disposed. Of course the differences of Scotists and Thomists as to 
attrilio and contritio are impoitant here also. The explanations of the Jubilee 
indulgence in Bratke, pp. 201 ff., 240 ff., appear to me to be partly based on mis- 
understanding and partly exaggerated. The account of the indulgence theory of the 
ecclesiastical reform party, p. 234 ff. (Cajetan) is instructive, both as helping us 10 
understand the earliest position of Luther, and as enabling us to see how poorly armed 
this reform party was. 

1 The theory of indulgence is summed up in the Extravagante Unigenitos 
of Clement VI. of the year 1349 : " Unigenitus dei filius . . . sanguine nos. 
redemit quam in ara crucis innocens immolatus, non guttam sanguinis modicvn 
(quae tamen propter unionem ad verbum pro redcmptione totius hunuini generis- 
suffecisset), sed copiose velut quoddam profluvium noscitur eflfiidisse. . . . 
Quantum ergo exinde, ut nee supervacua, inanLs aut superflua tantse efiusionis. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: INDULGENCES. 267 

Against this theory there not only was a reaction on the part 
of the re-invigorated or Augustinian Thomism, in the shape of a 
strong insistence on the moral and religious requirements for the 
reception of indulgences, but — keeping the sects out of view — 
there also arose in the fourteenth century a radical opposition, 
which had likewise an Augustinian (and biblical) basis. 
Against no other ecclesiastical practice and theory did Wyclif 
assume so determined an attitude as against indulgences. 
He saw in them nothing but arbitrariness, which had only 
forced its way in of recent times ; the Bible knew nothing of 
indulgences, which encroached upon the prerogative of God, 
and were therefore positively blasphemous. He also saw 
clearly the mischief of indulgences in hindering obedience to 
the law of Christ ; still he did not frame a satisfactory theory as 
to how a distressed conscience can be comforted. For him, and 
for his scholar Huss, the perniciousness of indulgences lies 
simply in their unbiblical character, in the pretensions of the 
hierarchy (the Pope), and in the corruption of morals. But 
indulgences cannot be rooted out by merely quickening con- 
science and contending against priestly power. ^ 

miseratio redderetur, themurum militant! ecclesise acquisivit, volens suis thesaurizare 
filiis pius pater, ut sic sit infinitus thesaurus hominibus, quo qui usi sunt dei amicitiae 
participes sunt effecti. Quern quidem thesaurum non in sudario repositum, non in 
agro abscondituni, sed per beatum Petrum . . . ej usque successores suos in terris 
vicarios commisit Bdelibus salubriter dispensandum, et propriis et rationabilibus 
causis : nunc pro totali, nunc pro partial] remissione poense temporalis pro peccatis 
debits, tarn generaliter quam specialiter (prout cum deo expedire cognoscerent) vere 
pcutitentibtis et confessis misericorditer applicandum. Ad cujus quidem thesauri 
cumulum b. dei genetricis omniumque electorum a primo justo usque ad ultimum 
merita adminiculum prsestare noscuntur, de cujus consumptione seu minutioue non est 
aliquatenus formidandum (!), tam propter infinita Christi merita quam pro eu quod, 
quanto plures ex ejus applicatione trahunturad justitiam, tanto magis accrescit ipsorum 
cumulus meritorum." 

See Buddensieg, Wyclif, p. 201 ff., Trialogus IV., 32: "Fateor quod indul- 
gentiffi papales, si ita se habeant ut dicuntur, sapiunt manifestam blasphemiam. 
Didtur enim, quod papa pnetcndit, se habere potentiam ad salvandum singulos 
viatores, et quantumcunque viantes deliquerint, nedum ad mitigandum poenas ad 
suffiragandum eis cum absolutionibus et indulgentiis, ne unquam veniant ad purga- 
torium, sed ad prsecipiendum Sanctis angelis, ut anima separata a corpore indilate 
ipsam deferant in requiem sempitemam. . . . Contra istam rudem blasphemiam 
invexi alias, primo sic : nee papa nee etiam dominus Jesus Christus potest dispensare 
cum aliquo nee dare indulgentias, nisi ut SBternaliter deitas justo consilio definivit. 



268 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

Not less strenuous than the opposition of Wyclif and Huss 
to the indulgences were the attacks of Wesel and Wessel. 
Both likewise wrote from the standpoint of Augustine against 
the indulgences. They too described the theory as unbiblical 
and as unsupported by any tradition, and used as weapons for 
overthrowing it the sole efficiency of God, the majesty of the 
divine penal righteousness and the gratia gratis data (caritas 
infusa). The punishments which God decrees man cannot 
avert ; only the penalties of positive law, or the ecclesiastical 
penalties, can the Pope remit God infuses His grace without 
merit (sine merito), but only in the case of those who are per- 
fectly disposed for it. At the same time Wesel relaxes the 
connection between sacrament and communication of grace 
(nominalistically : "propter pactum institutum cum sacerdotibus" 
[on account of an agreement instituted with the priests]). 
At bottom there is no distinction between his doctrine of the 
Sacrament and the vulgar one. He is merely unable, from feeling 
more decidedly the majesty of God, to draw the conclusions from 
the indulgences, which, along with others, he calls "piae fraudes."^ 

Sed non docetur, quod papa vel homo aliquis potest habere colorem justitiae (on this 
falls the greatest weight) taliter faciendi ; igitur non docetur, quod papa talem habeat 
potestatem. . . . Item videiur quod ilia opinio multipliciter blasphemat in Christum, 
cum extoUitur supra ejus humanitatem atque deitatem et sic super omne quod dicitur 
deus. . . . Sed eia, miliies Christi, abicite prudenter hxc opera atque JUtUias 
priruipis tenebrartim et induimini dominum Jesum Christum, in armis suis fideliter 
confidentes, et excutite ab eccle.sia tales versutias antichristi, docentes populum, quod 
in ipso solo cum lege sua et memltris debet confidere et operando illis conformitcr ex 
suo opere bono saivari^ specialiter si antichristi versutias fideliter detestetur. '* 

^ A series of passages from the Disput. adv. indulgentias of Wesel has been re- 
printed by Hauck, p. 303 i. Everything in Wesel is really only apparently radical. 
He lets the vulgar doctrine of the Sacraments stand, up to the point at which the 
Sacrament of Penance does not cancel the temporal penalties of sin. But at this 
point he will stop short; for these penalties cannot at all be cancelled (i) because 
God decrees them and means to carry them out : (2) because there is no one who 
could remove them — the priests are in everythincj only ministri dei in remittendis 
culpis — (3) because it is in keeping with piety to endure them ; (4) because there 
could be no purgatory at all, if the theory of indulgences were correct ; for the 
treasury of indulgences would be enough to compensate for all temporal penalties. If 
there mingles already in the polemic of Wesel a Wyclifite- Hussite (Donatist) element, 
in so far as it is required that the objective importance of the priests (the hierarchy) 
be diminished (by no means abolished), this element is much more recognisable in 
Wessel. To the pious alone are the keys given. Now as the Popes and priests are 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF SACRAMENTS: EXTREME UNCTION. 269 

The Church, in spite of these forms of opposition, went on 
its way.^ 

5. Extreme unctionr Only from Thomas's time was it 
asserted that Christ Himself instituted this Sacrament, while 
the Apostle James (5, 14) only proclaimed it. The Materia is 
oil blessed by the bishop, while the episcopal consecration 
was declared ** conveniens *' by Thomas on the same ground as 
in the case of confirmation (expression of the higher power of 
the bishop with respect to the " mystical body of Christ," see 
above, p. 231, note; hence the Pope can also give power to 
ordinary priests to consecrate). The " form " is a deprecatory 
prayer (the indicative form can at the most be added). The 
administrator is any priest The Sacrament can be repeated.^ 
The receivers are those under fatal illness and the dying. The 
purpose (res sacramenti) is the remission of sins (remissio pee- 
in many cases not pious, these camales homines have power at all only in extemis, 
1.^., what they undertake has 10 do, not with the true Church and grace and sin» 
but with the empirical Church ; see de sacram. paenit. f. 51 : ** Camalis homo non 
sapit, qiue sancti amoris sunt, igitur judicare non potest. Unde judicium ecclesiad et 
eorum qui in ecclesia prsBsident, quia saepe camales, animales, mundiales aut 
diabolici sunt et tamen suum officium vere administraut sicut viii spirituales est dea 
pleni, liquet excommunicationes et indulgentias non ad ea qux caritatis et amoris 
sunt se extendere sed tantum ad exteriorem pacem et tranquillitatem ecclesise. Unde 
indulgentiae sunt remissiones de his poenis quas prselatus injunxit aut injungere 
potuit." But further, the keys that are given to Peter are not handed over to 
arbitrary use ; true repentance and divine forgiveness go together. Everything rests 
on grace, and only pious priests are minbtri dei, i.e. , ministers of the grace which 
God alone is able to infuse. But Wessel took still another important step, fie 
asked himself whether the temporal penalties of sin really remain after forgiveness, 
and he is inclined to see discipline rather in the penalties of the absolved, (f. 60.) 
From this point he also assailed the conception of satisfactio operum, and drew a 
conclusion from Augustinianism which scarcely anyone before him had ventured to 
draw : satisfaction cannot take place at all, where God has infused His love ; it leads 
of necessity to a limitation of the gratia gratis data, and detracts from the work of 
Christ. The plenitudo gratis excludes the satisfactio (fol. 61, 62), how much more 
the indulgences, which he defines thus (I.e.): " indulgentiarum materia est abusus 
quxstorum et saepe illorum falsum crimen, nonnumquam impura et corrupta intentio 
papa." 

' At Constance (Mansi XXVII., p. 634, No. 42) the proposition was condemned ; 
" Fatuum est credere indulgentiis papx et episcoporum." 

« Thomas, P. III., Suppl. Q. 29-33. Schwane, p. 675-677. 

3 In the earlier period, Ivo and others expressed themselves against repetition.. 
From the Lombard's time repetition is approved, but not in one and the same 
illness. 



270 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

catorum), but only of venial sins, or the cleansing away of the 
remains of sin, or occasionally (per accidens), that is, if no 
hindrance exists, the full forgiveness of sins.^ Therefore the 
Sacrament is also defined as " completion " of the Sacrament of 
Penance, though it remains quite dark why and how far this 
Sacrament needs completion. Here also, as in the case of con- 
firmation, we have to do, not with a Sacrament that is the 
product of a dogmatic theory^ but with an observance, the 
value of which is raised so high on grounds of expediency,* 
while theoretically it is rated very low. Even bodily healing is 
expected, if it please God, from this Sacrament. 

6. Priestly ordination? In connection with this Sacrament 
the general sacramental theory can be maintained, if at all, only 
by artifice, because the hierarchical interest created it, and 
introduced it into the sacramental system of grace simply with 
a view to self-glorification. The ** form " is the words " accipe 
potestatem ofTerendi " (receive the ' power of offering) ; the 
"material" cannot be pointed out to the senses with certainty; 
but Thomas here made a virtue of necessity, and the others 
followed him ; from the very uncertainty the hierarchical nature 
of the Sacrament is proved.* One thought of the vessels or 

1 Thomas, I.e., Q. 30, Art. I : " Principalis effectus hujus sacramenti est remissio 
peccatorum, quoad reliquias peccati (what does that mean ?), et ex consequenti etiam 
quoad culpam, si earn inveniat." Art. 2 : "Ex hoc sacramento non semper sequitur 
corporalis sanatio, sed quando expedit ad spiritualem sanationem. £t tone semper 
earn inducit, dummodo non sit impedimentum ex parte redpientes " : cf. the compre- 
hensive description of the Sacrament in the Bull of Eugene IV. (Mansi XXXI., p. 
1058). 

' In itself it was, no doubt, very expedient to introduce a Sacrament in connectioa 
with death, and thereby to increase confidence in dying. This was strengthened by 
the rite of anointing the several members, and thereby showing in an impressive way 
to the sick, that the members with which he had sinned had been cleansed. Here, 
also, as in the case of confirmation, the Church gave heed to men's need of something 
"objective," instead of leading them without any ceremonies to Christ. 

» Thomas, P. III., Suppl. Q. 34-40- Schwane, pp. 677-685. 

4 Q. 34, Art. 3 : " Sacramentum nihil est aliud quam qusedam sanctificatio homini 
exhibita cum aliquo signo visibili. Unde cum in susceptione ordinis quaedam oonse- 
cratio homini exhibeatur per visibilia signa, constat ordinem esse sacramentum." Art. 
5 : " Materia in sacramentis exterius adhibita significat virtutem in sacramentis agen- 
tem ex intrinseco omnino advenire. Unde cum effectus proprius hujus sacramenti, 
scil. character, non percipiatur ex aliqua operatione ipsius qui ad sacramentum aocidit 
sicut erat in psenitentia sed omnino ex intrinseco adveniat, competit ei materiam 



-CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: ORDINATION. 2/1 

symbols by which the hierarchical functions were represented 
(Thomas), another of the laying on of hands. The former 
was asserted by Eugene IV. in the Bull " Exultate " (Lc). 
The dispenser is solely the bishop. Here there arose, however, 
many questions, in some respects entering deep into ecclesias- 
tical law and ecclesiastical practice, indirectly also into dog- 
matic, which will only be noted here ; (i) on the seven orders 
(ordines), and their relation (the Pope can empower even an 
ordinary priest to ordain to the lower orders); (2) on the 
relation of the priestly to the episcopal consecration (in how far 
is the bishop superior to the priest ? in respect of divine right ? 
-(jure divino) ; (3) — and this was the most important question — 
on the validity of orders that have been conferred by schismatic 
or heretical bishops. From as far back as the Donatist conflict 
there prevailed a controversy on this point, which was decided 
in the Church, as a rule, in a liberal spirit, to the effect, namely, 
that such ordinations are indeed unpermitted, /.^., are null and 
void as to their practical effects, but yet are not invalid. On 
the other hand the Lombard asserted that no heretic can duly 
celebrate confirmation, the Eucharist and ordination to the 
priesthood. Thereafter there prevailed among the Scholastic 
theologians great uncertainty ; yet there was a growing leaning 
to the liberal view, the Sacrament of Penance alone being 
excepted. But in the Middle Ages the Popes very often 
declared entirely invalid the ordinations of bishops who were 
under disfavour and of rival Popes. As regards the effect of 
this Sacrament, the character was here the chief matter.^ It 

habere, tamen diversimode ab aliis sacramentis qux materiam habenU Quia hoc quod 
4onfertur in aliis sacramentis^ derivaiur tantum a deo^ non a ministro qui scLcramen- 
tum dispensed ^ sed illud quod in hoc sacramenio traditur^ sciL spiritucUis potestas^ 
dernxitur etiam ab eo qui sacramentum dat sicut potestas imperfecta a petfecta, Et 
ideo effUacia aliorum sacramentorum principaliter consistit in materia^ qua virtutetn 
divinam et significat et continet^ ex sanctificatione per ministrum adhibita, Sed 
4ffUaciahujus sacramenti principaliter residet penes eum, qui sacramentum dispensat, 
materia autem adhibetur magis ad demonstrandum potestatem, quae traditur particu- 
lauter ab habente eam complete, quam ad potestatem causandam, quod patet ex hoc 
quod materia com petit usui potestatis." 

1 Not a saving benefit, therefore, given to an individual ; for the ordo serves the 
Church (Thomas, Q. 35, A. i). Here, also, the doctrine of sacramental grace (par- 
ticipatio divinse natune) has breaches made in it ; nay, Thomas says plainly, Q. 34, 



272 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. a 

consists in the conveyance of the right to dispense the Sacra- 
ments,^ to forgive sins, to officiate as judge, and to be mediator 
between God and men.* But on the other hand, again, all the 
seven orders were called Sacraments by some (in the case of 
others they are regarded only as sacramentalia), although it 
was added, that only the diaconate and the presbyterate have 
institution by Christ as their basis. The episcopate could not 
be reckoned as a special ordo, because tradition forbade it; 
but efforts were made to assign to it a special position, higher 
than the ordinary priesthood, and given to it by Christ, and a 
basis was found for it, not in sacramental, but in judicial power. 
Duns Scotus, moreover, laid down the lines of the doctrine, that 
the episcopal consecration is a special Sacrament 

7. Marriage? Like the former Sacrament, this one also 
encroaches, in the particular questions connected with it, on the 
field of ecclesiastical law, only that these questions are tenfold 
more numerous than in the case of the other. The expediency 
of declaring marriage a Sacrament, and thereby bringing this 
foundation of society under ecclesiastical jurisdiction is obvious. 
Just on that account it was overlooked also that the declaring 
of marriage a Sacrament implied that breaches had previously 
been made in the general conception of a Sacrament. Marriage 
was already instituted by God in Paradise for the propagation 
of the human race (and therefore as an obligation [ad officium]), 
and to be indissoluble too ; but according to Thomas it was 
only raised to the position of a Sacrament by Christ, inasmuch 
as He made it the picture of His union with the Church, thereby 
established anew its indissoluble character, and also united with 

Art. 2 : ''unde relinquitur, quod ipse character interior sit essentialiter et principaliter 
ipsum sacramentum ordinis ! " 

1 At the same time the celebration of the Mass is the chief matter ; it alone is men- 
tioned in the formula of consecration. 

3 The Lombard, Sent. IV., Dist. 24 I. : " Sacerdos nomen habet compositum ex 
Gncco et Latino, quod est sacrum dans sive sacer dux. Sicut enim rex a regendo 
ita sacerdos a sacrando dictus est, consecrat enim et sanctiBcat." At the same dme 
being empowered to teach was also no doubt mentioned, and for the person of the 
priest an undefinable ''amplius gratiae munus, per quod ad roajora redduntur idonei" 
(Thomas, Q. 35, Art. i). In the Bull " Exultate" (Mansi, l.c, p. 1058) it is said: 
" Effectus augmentum gratiae, ut quis sit idoneus minister." 

•Thomas, P. III., Suppl. Q. 41-68. Schwane, pp. 685-695. 



CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS : MARRIAGE. 2/3 

marriage a saving gift.* So far as it also provides for propa- 
gation within the Churchy its sacramental character is already 
justified ;^ but besides its sacramental effect, marriage, since the 
Fall, has also the character of an indulgence, as " remedium " 
against the insurgent passions of the flesh.* It is further ad- 
mitted, that among all the Sacraments marriage has the ** mini- 
mum de spiritualitate,"* hence it stands in the last place, and the 
unmarried life is to be preferred. The examination of the 
question, whether the " copula carnalis," or, the right to demand 
the " debitum conjugale," belongs to the essence of marriage, 
was necessarily treated with Joseph's marriage in view. As 
there was no wish to exclude that right from the essence of 
marriage (the assertion of the right does not belong to its 
essence), one was led to the interesting question whether 
Mary, when she concluded marriage with Joseph, was not 
obliged to agree conditionally to a possible assertion of the right 
of marriage on the part of Joseph. The Lombard still answered 
this question in the affirmative;* but Bonaventura already 
found another way of solving it^ As to " material '* and " form,** 
there prevailed the greatest uncertainty. Yet in the Middle 
Ages it was not doubted that the decisive external sign is the 
expressed "consensus" of the parties to the marriage,^ the 

1 Thomas, l.c., Q. 41, A. i ; 42, A. 2, 3. In the way in which the Lombard 
describes the marriage bond as sacramental, a beautiful proof is presented of the 
ultimate interest of Western Post-Augustinian Catholicism, in so far as it is deter- 
mined at the same time by the thought of conformitas naturse divine and by that of 
cariias, Sentent. IV., Dist. 26 F. : ** Ut inter conjuges conjunctio est secundum 
consensum animorum et secundum permixtionem corporum, sic ecclesia Christo 
copulatur voluntate et natura, qua idem vult cum co, et ipsa formam sump«it de 
natura hominis. Copulata est ergo sponsa sponso spiritualiter et corporaliter, 
f.^., caritate et conformitate naturae. Hujus utriusque copulse figura est 
in conjugio. Consensus enim conjugum copulam spiritualem Christi et ecclesise, 
quae fit per caritatem, signiHcat \ commixtio vero sexuum illam significat, qua: fit per 
naturae conform itatem.'* 

2 Thomas, P. III., Q. 65, A. 4. 
' Thomas, Q. 42, A. 2. 

•* Thomas, P. III., Q. 65, A. 2. 

Sentent. IV., Dist. 30 B. 
« See Schwane, p. 688. 

7 Thomas, Q. 42, Art. I : '* Verba quibus consensus matrimonialis exprimitur sunt 
forma hujus sacramenti." Also : " Sacramentum matrimonii perficitur per actum 
ejus, qui sacramento illo ulitur, sicut peenitentia. Et ideo sicut peenitentia non habet 

S 



274 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

priest's blessing was held to be only " a sacramental," not the 
Sacrament.^ Many Schoolmen, it is true, sought to extract an 
effectual spiritual character, but the majority recognised only a 
quite undefined saving grace.^ On the other hand Durandus 
denied entirely the opus operatum (the saving grace), saying 
that marriage only signifies something sacred (union of the 
Church with Christ).^ That excessive recognition of saving grace 
stands in flagrant opposition to the view that was derived from 
Augustine, that the " copula carnalis " in marriage, because it is 
not materially different from the ** copula carnalis fornicatoria," 
IS so deeply infected with sin, that sin is committed, not indeed 
by the partner who consents, but by the partner who demands, 
even when it is done for the purpose of avoiding adultery.* 
While therefore the Sacrament consists in the expressed " con- 
sensus " to enter into marriage with a person of the other sex, 
and thereby the right of the " debitum conjugale " is implicitly 
laid down, the assertion of this sacramental right is to be held a 
sin ! ^ In the Bull of Eugene IV. (l.c). there is to be found, again, 
a short serviceable summing up.^ 

aliam materiam nisi ipsus actus sensui subjectos, qui sunt loco materialis elementi, ita 
est de matrimonio." 

1 Thomas, Q. 42, Art. I : '* benedictio sacerdotis est quoddam sacramentale." 

•-* Thomas, Q. 42, Art. 3. 

* See Schwane, p. 689. 

* So Bonaventura and Thomas, Q. 49, Art. 4-6, especially Art. 5 : ** atrum actus 
matrimonialis excusari possit sine bonis matrimonii.'* Here, among other things, it 
is said: ''si aliquis per actum matrimonii intendat vitare fomicationem in conjuge, doq 
est aliquod peccatum ; . . . sed si intendat vitaie fomicationem in se . . . hoc est 
peccatum veniale." 

* The contradictions on Thomas's part are here very great ; for on the other hand 
it is said. I.e., Ait. 4, that proles, fides, and sacramentum not only excuse, bat 
sanctify, the act of marriage. See also in Sentent. Dist. 26, Q. 2, Art. 3 : " Cum in 
matrimonio datur homini ex divina institutione facultas utendi sua uxore ad procrca- 
tionem prolis, datur etiam gratia, sine qua id convenienter facere non posset." 

* ** Septimum est sacramentum matrimonii, quod est signum conjunctionis Chrisd 
et ecclesice secundum apostolum. Causa efHciens matrimonii regulariter est mutuas 
consensus per verba de pixsenti expressus. Adsignatur autem triplex bonum matri- 
monii. Primum est proles suscipienda et educanda ad cultum dei. Secundum est 
fides quam unus conjugum alteri serve re debet. Tertium indivisibilitas matrimonii, 
propter hoc quod significat indivisibilem conjunctionem Christi et ecclesixe. Quamvis 
autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matri* 
monium contrahere fas est, cum matrimonii vinculum legitime contracti perpetuum 
sit.'* How strong still in the fourteenth century was the disinclination of the Scotist 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 275 

In the doctrine of the Sacraments Thomas was the teacher of 
determining influence in the Middle Ages, and he has remained 
such to the present day in the Catholic Church. But, so far as 
the new ecclesiasticism admitted of it at all, Thomas went back 
to Augustine. Yet how strongly even • in him the doctrine of 
the gratia gratis data (grace graciously bestowed) is affected by 
a regard to the doctrine, that God treats with us according 
to our merits ; how this latter view, which Augustine had 
not entirely eradicated, still exercised its influence, Thomas's 
doctrine of the Sacraments shows already very plainly. The 
earnest, truly religious spirit which distinguished him was 
increasingly weakened and led astray by regard for what was 
held valid. Yet that, certainly, is not the only weakness. An 
influence, at least equally pernicious, was exercised by the 
logical apprehension of grace as a physical, mysterious act, and 
a communication of objective benefits. That also originated 
with Augustine, and that also, logically carried out, broke up 
Augustinianism ; the breaking up of Augustinianism zvas really 
not occasioned from without ; it was in great part tlie result of an 
inner development. The three elements which Augustine left 
standing in and along with his doctrine of grace, the element of 
merit, the element of gratia infusa and the hierarchical priestly 
element, continued to work, till they completely transformed the 
Augustinian mode of thought. But as we have seen, that was 
already foreshadowed in Gregory the Great, and on the other 
hand the process did not reach its termination yet in the Middle 
Ages. The Augustinian reaction of the fifteenth and sixteenth 
centuries which partly embodied itself in the decrees of Trent, 
was only fully checked again, after a struggle for three hundred 
years, in the nineteenth century. 

C. The Revision of Augustinianism in the Direction of the 

Doctrine of Merit, 

That the grace springing from the passio Christi is the founda- 
tion of the Christian religion, and therefore must be the Alpha 

theologians to regard marriage as a full sacrament, may be seen from Werner, II., p. 
424 if. (against Durandus Aureolus). 



'276 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

and Omega of Christian Theology — this fundamental Pauline 
and Augustinian thought was directly denied by no ecclesiastical 
teacher of the West' But as in itself it may mean many things, 
and, without definite interpretation, by no means guarantees 
the purity of the Christian religion — for what is grace? God 
Himself in Christ, or divine forces ? and what does grace effect? 
faith, or a mysterious quality ? — so also, if the effect of grace is to 
be held as only " improvement," for this very reason it is capable 
of being wrought over in a way that ultimately cancels it 

The Lombard — in accordance with his intention to reproduce 
tradition — confined himself to repeating with precision the 
Augustinian propositions about gnzce^ predestination and justi- 
fication (faith and love).^ But as soon as he brings forward pro- 

1 The proposition of Irenoeus (III., 18, 6) : "Si non vere passus est, nulla gratia ei, 
cum nulla fuerit passio," is the firmly adhered to basis of the whole of the Christianit}' 
and of the whole of the theology of the West. 

^Sentent. II., Dist. 25 P. : ** Libertas a peccato et amiseria pergratiam est ; libertas 
vero a necessitate per naturam. Utramque libertatem, natur8c scil. et gratise, notat 
apostolus cum ex persona hominis non redempti ait : * velle adjacet mihi, etc.,' acsi 
diceret, habeo libertatem nature, sed non habeo libertatem gratise, ideo non est apud 
me perfectio boni. Nam voluntas hominis, quam naturaliter habet, non valet erigi ad 
bonum efficaciier volendum, vel opere implendum, nisi per gratiam liberetur et 
adjuvetur : liberetur quidem, ut velit, et adjuvetur, ut perficiat . . . dei gratiam non 
advocat hominis voluntas vel operatio, sed ipsa gratia voluntatem pnevenit prseparando 
ut velit lx)num et pntparatam adjuvat ut perficiat." He repeats also correctly the 
Augustinian doctrine of predestination (I. Dist. 40 D.) : God does not elect on the 
basis of prescience, but it is only the election that produces the merits. He rejects 
pra^scientia iniquitatis quorundam : ** repix)batio dei, qua ab aetemo non eligendo 
quosdam reprobavit, secundum duo consideratur, quorum alterum prsescit et non 
pncparat, i.e.^ iniquitatem, alterum pnescit et prseparat, scil. aetemam pamam.'* 
Reprol)ation rests on the mysterious but just decision not to show mercy to some ; its 
result is hardening. The chief propositions of the Lombard on faith, love, and works 
are : III. Dist. 23 D. : *' Credere deo est credere vera esse quse loquitur, quod et mali 
faciunt . . . ; cre<lere deum est credere quod ipse sit deus, quod etiam mali faciunt ; 
credere in deum est credetido amarty credendum in eum ire, credendo ei adhzerere et 
ejus membris incorporari : per hanc fidem justificatur impius^^ (word for word after 
Augustine). So also he distinguishes in faith, after Augustine, id quod and id quo 
creditur (I.e. sub. C). The latter, subjective faith, is to be distinguished according 
as it is virtus and according as it is not virtus. Faith, so far as love is still wanting to 
it, is fides informis (not virtue). All deeds without faith are devoid of goodness, II. 
Dist, 41 A. : "cum intentio Ixmum opus faciat et fides intentionem dirigat, non 
immerito quieri potest, utrum omnis intentio omneque opus illorum malum sit, qui 
fidem non habent ? . . . Quod a quibusdam non irrationabiliter astruitur, qui dicunt 
omnes actiones et voluntates hominis sine fide malas esse . . . Quae eigo sine fide 



CHAP. IL] the revision OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 277 

positions about freewill, these have by no means an Augustinian, 
but rather a Semipelagian ring ; for they are already dominated 
by a regard to merits Where this view is taken, that is to say, 
a point must always be ultimately found, which makes it 
possible to attribute a value to the independent action, of man 
over against God. But the contradiction which plainly comes 
out in the Lombard, when his doctrine of grace is compared 
with his doctrine of freedom, is equally prevalent among the 
theologians before him, nay, in them it comes out more strongly, 
most strongly in Abelard.' There is still to be observed as 

fiunt, bona non sunt, quia omne bonum deo placet." H. Dist. 26 A. : ** Operans 
{gratia est, quae prsevenit voluntatem bonam : ea enim liheratur et piteparatur hominis 
voluntas, ut sit bona bonumque eflficaciter velit ; cooperans vero gratia voluntatem 
jam bonam sequitur adjuvando . . . Voluntas hominis gi-atia dei pnevenitur atque 
pneparatur, ut fiat bona, non ut fiat voluntas, quia et ante gratiam voluntas erat, sed 
non erat bona et recta voluntas." It is repeatedly said that grace consists in the 
infusion of fides cum caritate (<.<f., the Holy Spirit), and that only with this the merits 
of man begin ; accordingly justitia as bona qualitas mentis (villus, qua recte vivitur) is 
entirely a work of God. 

^ Sentent. H., Dist. 24 C. : " Lil)erum arbitrium est facultas rationis et voluntatis, 
qua bonum eligitur gratia assistente vel malum eadem desistente." II. Dist. 27 G. : 
''Cum ex gratia dicuntur esse bona meriia et incipere . . . gratia gratis data intel- 
ligitur, ex qua bona merita incipiunt. Qux cum ex sola gratia esse dicantur, non 
excluditur liber um arbitrium, quia nullum meritum est in homine^ quod non fit per 
liberum arbitrium^ II. Dist. 26 G. : ** Ante gratiam praevenientem et operantem, 
qua voluntas bona praeparatum in homine, proecedere qusedam bona ex dei gratia et 
libero arbitrio, quaedam etiam ex solo libero arbitrio, quibus tamen vita non meretur, 
nee gratia, qua justificatur." II. Dist. 27 J.: ** Cum dicitur fides mereri justifica- 
tionem et vitam aeternam, ex ea ratione dictum accipitur, quia per actum fidei meretur 
ilia. Similiter de caritate et justitia et de aliis accipitur. Si enim fides ipsa virtus 
praeveniens diceretur esse mentis actus qui est meritum, jam ipsa ex libero arbitrio 
originem h<iberet, quod quia non est, sic dicitur esse meritum, quia actus ejus est 
meritum, si tamen adsic caritas, sine qua nee credere nee sperare meritum vitae est. Unde 
apparet vere quia caritas est spiritus s., qui animae qualitates informal et sanctificat, 
ut eis anima informetur et sanctificetur, sine qua aninue qualitas non dicitur virtus, 
quia non valet sanare animam." II. Dist. 41 C. : **Nullus dei gratiam mereri potest, 
per quam justificalur, potest tamen mereri, ut penitus abiciatui. Et quidem aliqui in 
tantum profundum iniquitatis devenerunt, ut hoc mereantur, ut hoc digni sint ; alii 
vero ita vivunt, ut etsi non mereantur gratiam justificationis, non tamen mereantur 
omnino repelli et gratiam sibi subtrahi." 

*In Anselm (Dialog, de lib. arb.), Bernard (de gratia et lib. arb.), and Hugo the 
Augustinian propositions regarding grace are repeated, but the explanations of free 
will are in part still more uncertain than in the Lombard. According to Anselm the 
rectitudo lil)eri arbitrii has disappeared indeed, but the potestas servandi rectitudinem 
remains ; see c. 3 : "liberum arbitrium non est aliud, quam arbitrium potens servare 



2/8 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

noteworthy the specific view taken by the Lombard of saving 
grace, who simply identifies it with the Holy Spirit. His 
meaning is, that while all other virtues become man's own by 
means of an infused habit (habitus), love arises directly in the 
soul through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since it is the 
indwelling Holy Spirit Himself. In this noteworthy view there 
lies the approach to a more evangelical position ; for " habitus *' 
there is substituted the direct activity of the Holy Ghost Just 
on that account this view' seldom found followers;' quite as 
few did the other, that in grace the gratia gratis dans (God 
Himself) and the gratia gratis data ought to be distinguished.^ 
The desire was to have, not God, but divine forces that can 
become human virtues. 

rectitudinem voluntatis propter ipsam rectitudinem." The ratio and the will power 
remain, and so, after the Fall, men are like those who have eyes and can see, but for 
whom the object has disappeared (c. 4). The libeitas arbitrii is accordingly defined 
by him (i) formally (ratio et voluntas tenendi), but also (2) materially, in as much as 
the voluntas tenendi remains. According to Bernard (c. 8) there belongs to free will, 
not the posse vcl sapere, but only the velle ; but the latter remains : ** manet igitur 
post peccatum liberum arbitrium, etsi miserum, tamen integrum . . . non ergo si 
creatura potens aut sapiens, sed tantum si volens esse desierit, liberum arbitrium 
amisisse putanda erit." In this formal description of free will Hugo diverges still 
further from Augustine ; for what is characteristic of this fatal development is this, 
that for Augustine's religious mode of view, for which freedom is beata necessitas, 
there is substituted an empirico-psychological mode of view, which is of no concein 
for religion, ana which, nevertheless now influences religious contemplation. "Vol- 
untas semper a necessitate libera est '' : this proposition is again made a foundation in 
the doctrine of religion. On Abelard's doctrine see Deuisch, I.e., p. 319 ff., who 
illustrates in particular the dangerous side in the conception of intcntio on which 
Abelard lays stress, and shows how the intellectualism of the theologian is in conflict 
with the traditional doctrine of original sin. 

' See II. Dist., 27 J. (see above, p. 277, note i) ; I. Dist., 17 B. : ** Ipse idem 
spiritus sanctus est amor sive caritas, qua nos diligimus deum et proximum, quae 
caritas cum ita est in nobis, ut nos faciet diligere deum et proximum, tunc spiritus 
sanctus dicitur mitti ac dari nobis." I. Dist., 17 Q. : ** Alios actus atque motus 
virtutum operatur caritas, 1.^., spiritus s., mediantibus virtutibus quarum actus sunt, 
utpote actum fidei, i,e.y credere fide media, et actum spei, i.e.y sperare media spe. 
Per fidem enim et spem pnedictos operatur actus. Diligendi vera <utum per se 
tantum sine alicujus virtuiis medio operatur. Aliter ergo hunc actum operatur quam 
alios virtutum actus." 

2 Duns contested it ; on the other hand, Pupper of Goch and Staupitz defended it; 
see Otto Clemen, J. Pupper von Goch (Leipzig, 1 896), p. 249. 

' Sentent. II., Dist. 27 G. : ** Cum ex gratia dicuntur esse bona merita et incipere, 
aut intelligitur gratia gratis dans, i.e,^ deus, vel potius gratia gratis data, quse volun* 
tatem hominis prsevenit." 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 2/9 

Here lies the fundamental error. In its ultimate basis the 
mode of view is not a religious but a moral one. That comes 
out distinctly in the case of the Schoolman who may be styled par 
excellence the theologian of grace, namely Thomas. It would 
seem as if one could not value grace more highly than he has 
done ; from God to God through grace — that is the theme of his 
entire dogmatic. And yet ultimately it is habitual virtue on 
which all depends. The decisive mistake was already made by 
Augustine. It lies in the gratia cooperans, which is distinguished 
from the gratia operans (praeveniens). The latter does not 
procure justification and salvation, but the former. But the 
former is only cooperative, for it runs parallel with the liberated 
will, and the two together produce merit, which is the matter 
of importance. But why is merit the matter of importance ? 
Because the theologian cannot conceive of anything else avail- 
ing before God than improvement that exhibits itself in a habitus. 
That thought, however, is not framed from the standpoint of 
religion, but from the standpoint of morality, or is a distressed 
conscience to be comforted by saying that there will gradually 
be formed a habit of love ? Look at it as we will, faith appears 
important here only in so far as it opens the way for the pro- 
curing of virtues ; the gratia praeveniens becomes the bridge 
that leads over to morality. But in the last analysis the cause 
that led to this scheme of doctrine lies still deeper ; for we must 
necessarily ask, why is the grace, which is, of course, to dominate 
the whole process, so narrowly conceived of in respect of its 
power, that it is unable to effect, alone and perfectly, what it 
contemplates ? The answer to this question must not simply 
run : in order to set aside the thought of an arbitrary procedure 
on God's part, for in other connections there was a falling back 
on the hidden will of God. Nor is it enough to say that the 
moral principle, that each one shall receive according to his 
deeds, furnishes the solution here ; this had an influence, but 
was not the only thing that was at work. At bottom, ratlur, it 
was because the conception itself of God and of grace admitted oj 
no other conclusion. There was no recognition of personality^ 
neither of the personality of God, nor of man as a person. If 
even in earthly relations man cannot be otherwise raised to a 



28o 



HISTORY OF DOGMA. 



[CHAP, a 




higher stage, than by passing into a person who is superior, 
more mature, and greater, that is, by entering into spiritual 
fellowship with such an one, and attaching one's self to him by 
reverence, love, and trust, then the same holds good, but in a 
way that transcends comparison, of the rising of man_from the 
sphexe of sin and guilt into the sphfsxe of Gpd. iTereno com- 
munications of things avaiTTBiit only fellowship of person with 
person ; the disclosure to the soul, that the holy God who rules 
heaven and earth is its Father, with whom it can, and may, live 
as^a child in its father's house — that is grace, nay, that alone is 
J, the trustful c onfiden ce in God, namely, which rests on the 
Inly'that the's^garatfng gtrffy has beqn swepL away. That 
was seen by Augustine as little as by Thomas, and it was not 
discerned even by the mediaeval Mystics, who aspired to having 
intercourse with Christ as with a friend; for it was the man 
Jesus of whom they thought in seeking this. But all of them, 
when they think of God, look, not to the heart of God, but to 
an inscrutable Being, who, as He has created the world out of 
nothing, so is also the productive source of inexhaustible forces 
that yield knotuledge and transformation of essence. And when 
they think of themselves, they think, not of the centre of the 
human ego, the spirit, which is so free and so lofty that it 
cannot be influenced by benefits that are objective, even though 
they be the greatest perceptions and the most glorious investi- 
ture, and at the same time is so feeble in itself that it can find 
support only in ^noth^v person. Therefore they constructed the 
thesis : God and gratia {i.e., knowledge and participation in the 
divine nature), in place of the personal fellowship with God, 
which is the gratia. That gratia, only a little separated from 
God in the thesis, became in course of time always further re- 
moved from Him. It appears deposited in the merit of Christ, 
and then in the Sacraments. But in the measure in which it 
becomes more impersonal, more objective, and more external, 
confidence in it is also impaired, till at last it becomes a magical 
means, which stirs to activity the latent good agency of man, 
and sets in motion the standing machine, that it may then do 
its work, and that its work may be of account before God. One 
sees plainly that everythings depends ultimately on the con- 



CHAP. IL] the revision OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 28 1 

ception of God. In the gratia cooperans that conception of God 
comes to view which represents God, n^*^ ^"^ ^^g hcAy Lord-w 
rplflfinn tn f ^^iU y T^^Pi ^"^ ^ *^ the Father of Jesus Christ in 
relation^o His child, but as th^unfathomable power that comes 
to help maij. ufitkrTcnowledgfe and iKItk secret influences "p£ a 
natTTTS Tland, in oroer that, by love and virtue^^ man may be able 
to win independent worth before Him. In Thomas it is 



the Augustimafl fntelTectualism, closely conjoined with the 
doctrine of deification, which ultimately determines the view of 
God and of grace. In the later Schoolmen the intellectualism 
is surmounted, and a beautiful beginning is made to reflect upon 
will, and thereby upon personality. But as it is no more than a 
beginning, grace appears finally in Nominalism simply as 
emptied of its contents and reduced to a magical force. Where 
the simplest and the hardest thing is not taken account of — 
childship and faith in contrast with the guilt of sin — piety and 
speculation are condemned to treat physics and morality (the 
natura divina and the bonum esse [the divine nature and the 
being good]) in endless speculations, to see grace in the con- 
junction of these two elements, with the result that, when the 
understanding has awakened and discovered its limits, there is 
an ending up with a bare aliquid (something) and with a morality 
that underbids itself. This conclusion is in keeping with the 
God who is inscrutable self-will, and who, just on that account, 
has set up an inscrutably arbitrary institution of grace as an 
establishment for the insurance of life. 

The fundamental features of Thomas's doctrine of grace are, 
thejollaswftgf-: ' the external principles of moral action are the 
law aud grace (Summa II. i, Q. 90): "The exterior principle 
moving to goodness is God, who both instructs us by the law 
and aids us by grace." In Qs. 90-108 the law is treated, and in 
Q. 107, Art. 4, it is asserted, that although the new law is easier 
as respects the external commands, it is more difficult as re- 
spects the " repression of the inner impulses " (cohibitio inter- 

1 On the general scheme in which Thomas has inserted his doctrine of grace, and 
especially on the significance of the Church as correlate of redemption, see Ritschl. 
Rechtfertigung, I. vol., 2 ed., p. 86 ff. The most wonderful thing in Thomas is that 
in the whole account no notice is taken of the specific nature of grace as gratia 
ChristL 



282 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

iorum motuum).' In Qs. 109-114 there follora^-theNdoctrine of 
grace. Thomas treats first (Q. 109) of the^ecessjty of£jcac5. 
In Art. I it is laid down that it is impossible^TTRliout grace to 
knoinf- -Siny^^tuiJIi^ The exposition is extremely noteworthy 
because it is very strongly determined by Aristotelian influ- 
ences.' At the same time the intellectualism of Thomas comes 
out here most distinctly : grace is the communication of super- 
natural knowledge \ but the " ligRl of grace " (lumen gratiae) is, 
moTQOwtr^'^ superadded to nature " (naturae superadditum). In 
both these views a disastrous step forward is taken ; for what 
is " superadded " is not necessary to the accomplishment of 
man's end, but reaches beyond it, may therefore be wanting, or 
establishes, if it is present, a superhuman worth, and hence"a 
merit. Only now in Art 2 is the relation of grace to moral 
goodness spoken of. Here appears at once the conse- 
quence of the ** superadditum." To man in his state of integrity 
the capacity is ascribed to do in his own strength " the good 
proportionate to his nature " (bonum suae naturae proportion- 

* "Quantum ad opera virtutum in interioribus actibus praecepta novae legis sunt 
graviora pneceptis veteris legis." The later Schoolmen did not indeed directly 
contest this position, but they asserted that through the Sacraments the defective 
fulfilment of the commands of the new law is supplemented. 

^ " Cognoscere veritatem est usus quidam vel actus intellectualis luminis ('omne 
quod manifcstatur lumen est '), usus autem quilibet quendam niotum importat . . • 
videmus autem in corporalibus, quod ad motum non solum requiritur ipsa forma, quse 
est principium motus vel actionis, sed etiam requiritur motio primi moventis. Primum 
autem movens in ordine corporalium est corpus cjeleste." This is now applied to the 
motus spirituales, whose ultimate author must therefore be God, ** ideo quantumcunque 
natura aliqua corporalis vel spiritualis ponatur perfecta, non potest in suum actum 
procedere nisi moveatur a deo, qu^e quidem motio est secundum suae providentiae 
rationem, non secundum necessitatem naturae, sicut motio corporis coelestis. Non 
solum autem a deo est omnis motio, sicut a primo movente, sed etiam ab ipso est 
omnis formalis perfectio, sicut a primo actu. Sic igitur actio intellectus et cujus- 
cunque entis creati dependet et a deo quantum ad duo. Uno modo in quantum ab 
ipso habet perfectionem sive formam per quam agit, alio modo in quantum ab ipso 
movetur ad agendum. Intellectus humanus habet aliquam formam, scil. ipsum 
intelligibile lumen, quod est de se sufficiens ad quaedam intelligibilia cognoscenda 
. . . altiora vero intelligibilia intellectus humanus cognoscere non potest, nisi fortiori 
lumine perficiatur . . . quod dicitur lumen gratiae, in quantum est natune superad- 
ditum. Sic igitur dicendum est, quod ad cognitionem cujuscunque veri homo indiget 
auxilio divino, ut intellectus a deo moveatur ad suum actum, non autem indiget ad 
cognoscendam veritatem in omnibus nova illustratione superaddita naturali iliustra> 
tioni, sed in quibusdam qiue excedunt naturalem cognitionem." 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 283 

atum) — God only comes into view here, as everywhere else, as 
"primus movens" (the primary mover); y^t divine help was 
needed in order to obtain a meritoripus **bonum superexcedens" 
(surplus goodness). But after th^l«'altthe re is need in order to 
both these ends of grace, which must first restor^'ffian s natureT^ 
Accbrrtingly atWOfold grace is required by him here. In this 
way the distinction is already drawn between gratia operans 
and gratia cooperans, and at the same time there is contemplated 
as man*s goal a supernatural state^ which can only be reached by 
help of tlu second grace ^ which produces merits.^ In Art 3 the 
question as to whether man can love God ab9ve-«dlthings with- 
out grace 4s dealt with in the same way r^^^Jatyra^before the 
Fall is certainly, capable of that ; for it is " quiddam connatu- 
rale homini" (something congenial to man) ; but after ^e^all 
nature is incapable of it " Man in the state of unfallen nature 
did not need the gift of grace superadded to natural goodness 
(naturalibus bonis) for loving God naturally above all things^ 
though he needed the aid of God moving him to this, but in the 
state of corrupt nature man needs also for this the help of grace 
that heals nature.'*/ In Art. 5 it is said regarding the question 
as to whether wfthout grace maiucan- 4iierit eternal Ijfe^ that 
every nature can, by its action, only bring about an effect which 
is proportionate to its strength. " But eternal life is an end ex- 
ceeding the proportions (proportioneni) of human nature ; hence 
man cannot in his own strength produce meritorious works 
which are proportionate to eternal life. Therefore without grace 

1 ** In statu naturae integroe quantum ad sufficientiam operativie virtutis poterat 
homo per sua naturalia velle et operari bonum suae natunc proportionatum, quale est 
bonum virtutis acquisita;, non autem bonum superexcedens, quale est bonum virtutis 
infusac ; sed in statu natune corniptse etiam deficit homo ab hoc, quod secundum 
suam naturam potest, ut non possit totum hujusmodi bonum implere per sua 
naturalia. Quia tamen natura humana per peccatum non est totaliter cornipta, ut 
scil. tan to bono naturae privetur, potest quidem etiam in statu nature corruptae per 
virtutem suoe natura; aliquod bonum particulare agere, non tamen totum bonum sibi 
connaturale." I^Ie must be healed auxilio mediciiue. *' Sic igitur virtute gratuita 
superaddita virtuti natune indiget homo in statu naturae integral;, quantum ad unum 
scil. ad operandum et volendum bonum supernaturale, sed in statu naturae corruptae 
quantum ad duo, scil. ut sanetur et ulterius ut bonum supernaturalis virtutis operetur^ 
quod est meritorium." 

^ In Art. 4 the fulfilling of the law of God is treated in the same way. 



^84 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

man cannot merit eternal lifer Nothing is said here of merits 
de congruo, nay, in Art 6 it is denied that by natural good 
deeds man can prepare for this grace ; * no doubt conversion to 
God comes about in free will, but the will cannot turn to God 
unless God converts it ; for man cannot raise himself independ- 
ently from the state of sin without grace,' cannot even in this 
state avoid with certainty mortal sins (Art. 8), nay even the 
redeemed man needs grace in order not to fall into sin ; • hence 
perseverance is also a special^cift^f grace.* 

After this, in Q. i lo, the ^sence^f grace is described. The 
inquiry begins very characteristi^^y with the question " whether 
grace places anything in the soul " (utrum gratia ponat aliquid 






* ** Quod homo convertatur ad deum, hoc non potest esse nisi dec ipsum con- 
vertente, hoc autem est pneparare se ad gratiam, quasi ad deum convert! . . . homo 
non potest se prneparare ad lumen gratia^ suscipiendum, nisi per auxilium gratuitum dei 



inicrius moventis." 



' Art. 7 : ** Cum enim peccatum transiens actu, remaneat reatu, non est idem 
resurgere a peccato, quod cessare ah aciu peccati, sed resurgere a peccato est reparari 
hominem ad ea quae peccando amisit." Sin has three evils as its consequences, 
macula, corruptio naturalis boni, meatus culpse. None of these results can be 
removed otherwise than by God. 

•^ Art. 9 : **homo ad recte vivendum dupliciter auxilio dei indiget. Uno quidem 
modo quantum ad aliquod habituale donum, per quod natura humana corrupta 
sanetur et etiam sanata eievetur ad operanda opera meritoria vit% setemae, qux 
excedunt proponionem naturae. Alio modo indiget homo auxilio grati^e, ut a dec 
moveatur ad agendum. Quantum igitur ad primum auxilii modum, homo in gratia 
existens non indiget alio auxilio gratise quasi aliquo alio habitu infiiso, indiget tamen 
auxilio gratise secundum alium modum, ut scil. a deo moveatur ad recte agendum, et 
hoc propter duo. First generally (nulla res creata potest in quemcunque actum 
prodire'nisi virtute motionis divinae), second specially, propter conditionem status 
humanse natune, quae quidem licet per gratiam sanctur quantum ad mentem, remanet 
tamen in ea corruptio et infectio quantum ad carnem per quam servit legi peccati ; 
remanet etiam quaedam ignorantioe obscuritas in intellectu ; propter varios enim rerum 
eventus <r/ (/uia etiam nos ipios fion perfects cognoscimusy non poasumus ad plenum 
scire quid nobis expediat, et idcv) necesse est nobis, ut a deo dirigamur et protegamur 
qui omnia novit et omnia potest. Et propter hoc etiam renatis in filios dei per 
gratiam convenit dicere : Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, et fiat voluntas 
tua, etc." 

^ Art. lo (strictly Augustinian, against Pelagius) : ** Ad perseverantiam habcndam 
homo in gratia constitutus non quidem indiget aliqua alia habituali gratia, sed divino 
auxilio ipsum dirigente et prolegente contra tentationum impulsus . . . et ideo post- 
quam aliquis est justiticatus per gratiam, necesse habet a deo peteie prsedictum 
perseverantije donum, ut scil. cu^todiatur a malo usque ad finem vitie : multis enim 
datur gratiuy quibus non datur perstverare in gratia,''^ 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 28$ 

in anima). Here it is laid dovVn that gratia has a threefold 
meaning -benevolent disposition, free gift without equivalent^ 
and thanks. Divine grace is not only benevolent disposition, 
but also gift, and therefore **iL>is manifest that grace places 
s omething in hi m who receives grace." Now the definition t 
" Thus, therefore, by man's being said to have the grace of God> 
there is signified something supernatural in man proceeding 
from God. Sometimes, however, the grace of God is a designa- 
tion for God's eternal love itself, as it is also called the grace of 
predestination, in so far as God has predestinated or chosen ^/^ 
some gratuitously, and not on the ground of merit " (sic igitur*"*^ 
per hoc, quod dicitur homo gratiam dei habere, significatur 
quiddam supernaturale in homine a deo proveniens. Quandoque 
tamen gratia dei dicitur ipsa aeterna dei dilectio, secundum quod 
dicitur etiam gratia praedestinationis, in quantum deus gratuita 
et non ex meritis aliquos praedestinavit sive elegit).^ But as 
grace " places something in the soul/' // is also a quality of t/ie 
soul, />., in addition to the help by which God in general moves 
the soul to good action, He infuses into it a supernatural quality} 
In the two following articles (3 and 4) it is now proved that 
grace is not only the being filled with this or that quality (not 
only with love even), but that it is related to the infused virtues 
as the natural light of reason (lumen rationis) to the acquired 
virtues (virtutes acquisitai), and that it is to be regarded there- 
fore as participation in the divine nature by means of an* 
illumination penetrating the whole being, whereby the true 
sonship to God comes to exist.^ 

* Art. I. 

2 Art. 2 : ** . . . multo magis illis quos movet ad consequendum bonum super- 
naturale aeiemum, infundit aliquas fonnas seu qualitates superfiaturaUs^ secundum 
quas suaviter etprompte ab ipso moveantur ad bonum atemum consequendum.^* 

• Art. 3 : *' Sicut lumen naturale rationis est aliquid praeter virtutes acquisitas, qure 
dicuntur in ordine ad ipsum lumen naturale, ita etiam ipsum lumen grati^e, quod est 
participatio divines natune, est aliquid pneter virtutes infusas, quie a lumine illo de- 
rivantur et ad illud lumen ordinantur." Hence because grace is not a mere virtue, 
but aliquid virtute prius, it is not placed in aliqua potentiarum animx, but in the 
essence of the soul itself. "Sicut enim per potentiam intellectivam homo participat 
cognitionem divinam per virtu tem _/?</(?«, et secundum potentiam voluntatis amorem 
divinum per virtutem caritaiis, ita etiam per ncUuram anima participat secundum- 
quandam similitudinem naturam divinam^ per quandam regeneratianem " (Art. 4). 



386 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

From this point, in Q. iii, the crndsionjoLgra^ is sketched 
And, first, a distinction is drawn between gratia gratum faciens 
(by which man is united to God [qua ipse homo deo conjungitur]), 
and gratia gratis data (the priestly official grace, by which the 
man himself is not justified, but the justification of another is 
contemplated [qua non homo ipse justificatur, sed justificatio 
alterius comparatur]). It is worthy of note that Thomas b^ins 
with this distinction (Art. i). Then follows the separation of 
grace into gratia operans and gratia co-operans (that by which 
He moves us to good volition and action — gift of habit divinely 
imparted to us [ilia, qua nos movet ad bene volendum et agen- 
dum — habituate donum nobis divinitus inditum]) ; it is justified 
by the proposition : " the operation of any effict is not attributed 
to that which moves, but to the mover " (operatio alicujus eflfectus 
non attribuitur mobili, sed moventi). In the effect, so far as our 
soul is mota non movens (the moved, not moving) the gratia 
operans appears ; in the effect, so far as it is mota movens (the 
moved, moving) the gratia cooperans appears (Art 2).^ Parallel 
with this is the division into gratia praeveniens and gratia subse- 

^ Note also : '* Est autem in nobis duplex actus ; primus quidem interior voluntatis ; 
et quantum ad istum actum, voluntas se habct ut mota, deus autem ut movens, et 
prsesertim cum voluntas incipit bonum velle, qure prius malum volebat. Et ideo se- 
cundum quod deus movet humanam mentem ad hunc actum, dicitur gratia operans. 
Alius autem actus est exterior qui cum a voluntate imperetur consequens est quod ad 
hunc actum operatio attribuatur voluntati. Et quia etiam ad hunc actum deus nos ad- 
juvat et interius confirmando voluntatem, ut ad actum perveniat, et exterius facultatem 
operandi prsebendo, respectu hujusmodi actus dicitur gratia cooperans, (There follows 
a proof-passage from Augustine). Si igitur gratia accipiatur pro gratuita dei motione, 
quia movet nos ad bonum meritorium convenienter dividitur gratia per oper- 
antem, et cooperantem. Si vero accipiatur gratia pro habituali dono, sic est 
duplex gratiae eflfectus, sicut et cujuslibet alterius formae, quorum primus est esse^ 
secundus est operatio. . . . Sic igitur habitualis gratia, in quantum animam sanat vcl 
justificat sive gratam deo facit, dicitur gratia operans^ in quantum vero est principium 
operis meritorii, quod ex libero arbitrio procedit, dicitur cooperans.'''' At an earlier 
point Thomas had already made an analogous distinction with r^ard to righteousness 
{justitia) ; see II., i Q. 100, Art. 12 : ** Si loquamur de justificatione proprie dicta sic 
considerandum est, quod justitia potest accipi prout est in hahitu vel prout est in actUy et 
secundum hoc justificatio dupliciter dicitur. Uno quidem modo secundum quod homo 
fit Justus adipiscens habitum justiita. Alio veio modo, secundum quod opera justitia: 
operatur, ut secundum hoc justificatio nihil aliud sit i\\i?im justitia exsectttio, Justitia 
autem, sicut alise virtutes, potest accipi et acquisita et infusa, Acquisita quidem 
causatur ex operibus, sed infusa causatur ab ipso deo per ejus gratiam, et haec est vera 
Justitia^ secundum quam aliquis dicitur Justus apud deum." 



CHAP. IL] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 28/ 

quens (Art 3).* In Art. 4 the gratia gratis data, />., the grace 
with which one helps others (for the edification of the com- 
munity, official grace), is subjected to a further division accord- 
ing to I Cor. xi., and in Art. 5 it is shown that the gratia gratum 
faciens is to be valued much more highly than the gratia gratis 
data. 

In Q. 112 the causae gratiae ^(causes of grace) are now con- 
sidered. That God alone can . be the cause is deduced in a 
genuinely Old Catholic way from the conception of grace as 
^fe5'^^^(nia1crng~"divine).^ Hence man cannot even prepare 
himself for this gracejthe preparation rather, which is necessary^ 
must be effected by grace itself,3 therefore the act of preparation 
for gratia infusa is not meritorious, for although every forma 
presupposes a materia disposita (prepared), yet it holds good 
even in the things of nature that "the preparedness of the 
material does not necessarily secure form save by virtue of the 
agent who causes the preparedness " (dispositio material non ex 
necessitate consequitur formam nisi per virtutem agentis, qui 
dispositionem causat).* This gratia gratum faciens can be 
smaller in the one, greater in the other, just because it is a free 



1 '* Sicut gratia dividitur in operantem et cooperantem secundum diversos afiectus, 
ita etiam in pncvenientem et subsequentem, qualitercumque gratia accipiatur. Sunt 
autem quinque effectus gratiae in nobis, quorum primus est ut anima sanetur, secundus 
est, ut bonum velit, tertius est, ut bonum quod vult cfHcaciter operetur, quanus est, ul 
in bono perseveret, quintus est, ut ad gloriam perveniat. Et ideo gratia ;secundum 
quod causat in nobis primum effectum, vocatur pneveniens, respectu secundi effectus 
et prout causat in nobis secundum, vocatur subsequens respectu primi effectus." 

^ **Cum donum gratiae nihil aliud sit quam qmedam participatio divina: natune, qua' 
excedit omnem aliam naturam, ideo impossibile est quod aliqua creatura gratiam causet. 
Sic enim necesse est, quod solus deus deificet, communicando consortium divinae 
naturae per quandam similitudinis participalionem, sicut impossibile est, quod aliquid 
igniat nisi solus ignis '* (Art. i). 

3 The thought is this, that gratia as habituaU donum dei requires a preparation, be- 
cause (Aristotelian) ** nulla /^rw/a potest esse nisi in materia disposita : sed si loqua- 
mur de gratia secundum quod significat auxilium dei mavefttis ad bonum (that is, the 
gratia prima), nulla pneparatio requirilur ex parte hominis, quasi praevcniens divinum 
auxilium.** With this momentous distinction the dissolution of Augustinianism took 
its beginning. 

* Art. 3 : ** Praeparatio hominis ad giatiam est a deo sicut a movente, a libero autem 
arbitrio sicut a moto . . . Secundum quod est a libero arbitrio, nullara necessitatem 
habet ad gratiae consecutionem." 



288 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

gift;^ but because it is something supernatural, no one here 

below to whom it is not specially revealed can know for certain 

whether he possess it* 

..There follows in Qs. 113 and 114 the inquiry int<£jh£_£fl£cU-^ 
"of grace. ^ In correspondence with the distinction between gratia 

operaris and gratia cooperans the effect of grace is twofold — 
j*usti6catiQa^nd_meriJoripus good works; but even in justifica- 
"fion the will inust co-operate. Only the very first point is dis- 

tinguishethtiy the sole efficiency of grace. This comes out at 

1 This also is a momentous, as it is also an Augiistinian, proposition, due likewise to 
thinking of grace as gratia infusa (habitus). No doubt Thomas further explains, that 
ex parte finis the greatness of grace always remains the same ("conjungens hominem 
summo bono, quod est deus''). But ** ex parte subjecti gratia potest suscipere magis 
vel minus, prout scil. unus perfectius illustratur a lumine gratiae quam alius. Cujus 
diversitatis ratio qtiidem est aliqua ex parte praparant is se adgratiam, quienim magis 
se adgratiam praparat pleniorem gratiam accipit,^^ This position was the main source 
of disaster for the period that followed : there was naturally the growing tendency to 
think more of the pnvparatio than of the causa, and to overlook the addition which 
Thomas had appended: "sed hac ex parte non potest accipi prima mtio hujus 
diversitatis, quia prajparatio ad gratiam non est hominis, nisi in quantum libenim 
arbitrium ejus pncparatur a deo. Unde prima causa hujus diversitatis accipienda est 
ex parte ipsius dei, qui diversimode suae gratise dona dispensatad hoc quod ex diversis 
gradibus pulchritudo et perfectio ecclesiae consurgat, sicut etiam di versos gradus rerum 
instituit, ui esset iiniversuni perfectum." This explanation manifestly leads in quite a 
different direction from the one mentioned first, with which it is associated ; for in the 
case of the former it is really a quesiitm about a more oi less, in the case of the latter, 
on the other hand, it is a question about varieties^ which are necessary to the per- 
fectness of the beautiful whole. But Thomas could unite the two explanations in 
accordance with his ontolog)-, because, like Augustine, he regarded ultimately even 
the less good as necessary in the cosmic system, since it is jubt in this way that the 
beauty of the whole comes out in the raanifoldness of its parts. Of course this reflt-c- 
tion simply cancels the ethical mode of contemplation and transforms it into the 
leslhetic. Thus, so far as Thomas does not derive the existence of more or less grace 
from the dispositio (pncparatio) hominis, but traces it rather to God, he knows only of 
(Esthetic ways of justifying it (Art. 4). 

2 This is the third momentous position (Art. 5) : " Nullus potest scire, se 
habere gratiam, ceriitudinaliter ; ccrtitudo enim non potest haberi de aliquo, nisi 
possit dijudicari per proprium principium." No one is sure of a conclusion, who does 
not know the major premiss. ** Principium auiem gratiae et objectum ejus est ipse 
deus, qui propter sui excellentiam est nobis ipiotus^ One can only ascertain the 
possession of grace conjccturaliter (per aliqua signa). But one can very well be sure 
of possessing scientia and fides , '^ non est autem similis ratio de gratia et caritate,^^ 
We see here what ruin was wrought by the thought of gratia infusa as a mysterious 
habitus which is applied to the soul ! But this habitus, of which one cannot be 
certain, corresponds with the deus ignotus ! 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 289 

once in Art. i (Q. 113). Tljomas raises the question whether 
the justification of the sinner istheTemission of sins J^utrum 
justificatio imipii sit remissio peccatorum ?), and in an extremely 
round-about explanation he answers at bottom with no, although 
he apparently replies to the question in the affirmative. He 
lays it down, that is to say, that ** justification, passively received, 
introduces an impulse towards righteousness^' (justificatio passive 
accepta importat motum ad justitiam), but that it comes into 
view here " as a certain change (transmutatio) from a state of 
unrighteousness to a state of righteousness/* " And because 
movement is described rather from the terminus ad quem than 
from the terminus a quo, so a change (transmutatio) of this 
kind, by^hichone is changed (transmutatur) from a state of 
unrighteousness into a state of righteousness, derives its name 
from the~termffuisTJ'quem* and is called the justification of the 
sinner " ; in other words : the actual justification does not yet 
take place through the " remission of sins," but only on account 
of the contemplated end can it be said that forgiveness of sins is 
already justification; in reality, however, justification — as a 
translation into a new state — only takes place later. This 
becomes still plainer, when it is affirmed in Art. 2 that even for 
the forgiveness of sins the gratia infusa is necessary. This has 
the "effect, certainly, of introducing a bad confusion; for if the 
position : " remission of guilt cannot be understood where there 
is no infusion of grace " (non potest intelligi remissio culpai, si 
non adest infusio gratiae) is correct (it is proved by the reflection 
that forgiveness of sins presupposes ** the effect of divine love " 
in us, i,e,^ presupposes that we love God in return), then forgive- 
ness of sins, instead of being the first thing, Je-tlje last, and one 
must ask himself, what then is really the effect of .the gratia 
praeveniens (in the sfrict^st sense)^ts it mere vocatio (calling), 
or something undefinable? Thomas here got astray with his 
own distinctions, or — in a highly characteristic way — he left in 
darkness what man owes to prevenient grace. In accordance 
with this it is pointed out in Arts. 3-5, that for justification there 
must already co-operate a movement of free will (motus liberi 
arbitrii), a movement of faith (motus fidei^and a hatred of sin 
(odium peccati), /.^., we are at once led on to contemplate the 

T 



^9P HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

intermingling of grace and self-actiyitj^.* 9^^'^ ^^^ does justi- 
fication take place (Art. 6); for 'rtour thing^are to be reckoned 
(enumerantur) which are require? for the justification of the 
sinner, vis.y the infusion of grace, the movement of free will in 
relation to God (in deum) by faith, and the movement of free 
will in relation to sin (in peccatum), and the remission of guilt 
(this la,st /oUows, then, from the three other things); the reason 
of which is that, as has been said, justification is a certain move- 
ment by which the soul is moved by God from a state of guilt 
into a state of righteousness ; but in any movement by which 
anything is moved by another, three things are required. First, 
the moving (motio) of the mover himself; second, the movement 
as in motion (motus mobilis) ; third, the consummation of the 
movement, or the arrival at the goal. From the side (ex parte), 
therefore, of the divine moving there is received the infusion 
of grace, from the side of free will the retirement and advance 
(recessus et accessus) of movement, while the consummation or 
arrival at the goal of this movement is brought about (impor- 
tatur) by the remission of guilt. For in this justification is con- 
summatedy* But although justification culminates in the 
forgiveness of sins, yet, as will appear, the whole process does 
not yet culminate in justification. Of this justification of the 
sinner it is further taught (Art. 7), that it is effected " originaliter ** 
at the moment of infusion^ and that ** it is realised instantane- 
ously and without succession " (in instanti fit absque successione). 
The difficulty, that the giving oi form (infusion) can only take 
place in materia disposita (in prepared matter) is set aside by 
saying, that " for the infusion of grace into the soul God does 

1 Art. 3 : ** In eo, qui habet usum liberi arbitrii, non fit motio a deo ad justitiam 
absque motu liberi arbitrii, sed ita infundit donum gratiae justificantis, quod etiam 
simul cum hoc movet liberum arbitrium ad donum gratiae acceptandum in his, qux 
sunt hujus motionis capaces." 4: "deus movet animam hominis con vertendo earn 
ad se ipsum . . . prima conversio ad deum fit per fidem . . . ideo motus fidei 
requiritur ad justificationem impii." 5 : ** recessus et accessus in motu liberi arbitrii 
accipitur secundum detestationem et desiderium . . . oportet igitur quod in justifica- 
tione impii sit motus liberi arbitrii duplex, unus quo per desiderium tendat in dei 
justitiam, et alius, quo detestetur peccatum." 

2 It may be remarked, by the way, that here and there in the Middle Ages it is 
related that those specially endowed with grace detected (sensibiliter) the infiision of 
grace, felt with the sense of ^Jiste, a sweetness, etc. 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 29I 

not require any disposition save that which He Himself creates. 
But He creates a disposition of this kind sufficient for the recep- 
tion of grace, sometimes indeed suddenly, but sometimes gradu- 
ally and in stages*' (ad hoc quod gratiam infundat animae, non 
requirit aliquam dispositionem, nisi quam ipse facit Facit 
autem hujusmodi dispositionem sufficientem ad susceptionem 
gratise quandoque quidem subito quandoque autem paulatim et 
successive).* In what follows, the order of the process is now 
inverted ii;i a bold way (Art. 8) : from the point of view of time 
the four things named above coincide, but causally they follow 
each other thus — (i) the infusion of grace ; (2) the movement 
towards God in love ; (3) the turning from sin ; (4) the forgive- 
ness of guirt. The legitimacy of this inversion is hot proved by 
Thomas; the aim in view is manifest; grace mu6t standi at 
the begijining. But because he is averse to distinguishing a 
grace^hich is not infused, but is simply the awakening of trust 
(fiducia), he cannot allow validity to the scheme which would 
really correspond with his mode of thought, namely, (i) a grace 
that is merely movens ; (2) faith (fides) ; (3) detestation of sin ; 
(4) remission of guilt; (5) infused grace (gratia infusa). He, 
therefore, places infused grace first " causally " (causaliter) (from 
the correct reflection that at all events the precedence belongs 
to this), but it is a mere assertion, which he himself cannot effec- 
tively prove, that this gratia is infusa; for its effects do not 
correspond with this. The confusion which, on closer inspection, 
we at once see to have been introduced by him here,* was not 
without its influence in the period that followed. In the con- 
cluding view taken of justification (Arts. 9 and 10), it is laid 
down that it is not only a great work (opus magnum) of God, 

iThe exposition is again cosmological (Aristotelian) : *' Quod enim agens naturale 
non subito possit disponere materiam, contingit ex hoc, quod est aliqua proportio 
ejus quod in materia resistit ad virtutem agentis et propter hoc videmus, quod quanto 
virtus agentis fuerit fortior, tanto materia citius disponitur. Cum igitue virtus divina 
sit infinita, potest quamcunque materiam cieatam subito disponere, etc. etc" 

*It shews itself, e.g., in the contradiction Art. 8 ad Primum, where he says: 
'* Quia infiisio gratiae et remissio culpae dicuntur ex parte dei justificantis, ideo ordine 
naturx prior est gratise infusio quam culpae remissio. Sed si sumantur ea quae ex 
parte hominis justificati, est ex converso ; nam prius est ordine natune liberatio a culpa, 
quam consecutio gratise justificantis.'' But only the one thing or the other holds good* 
It is the worst scholasticism to assert that the two views can be held together. 



292 HISTORY OF DOGMA* [CHAP, IL 

but is really even a miraculous work (opus miraculosum) ; but 
at bottom the latter holds good only of sudden conversions: 
"certain miraculous works, although they are less than the 
justification of the sinner, so far as the good that comes into 
existence is concerned, are, nevertheless, beyond the usual order 
of such effects, and therefore have more of the nature of miracle " 
(" quaedam miraculosa opera, esti sunt minora quam justificatio 
impii quantum ad bonum quod fit, sunt tamen praeter consuetum 
ordinem talium effectuum et ideo plus habent <Je ratioue 
miraculi "). This exhausts justification, yet not the whol eprc^ 
; cess,; only iiow,.4aiher3. axe the effects first considered which are 
-imparted through grace in an increasing measure to'hifn wlio is 
already justified. They are all placed under the head of merit 
(Q. 1 14). First, the question is raised whether man can acquire 
merit at all before God (Art. i). The answer runs : not in the 
absolute sense of strict righteousness, but certainly in virtue of a 
benevolent arrangement of God/ Then in accordance with this it 
is declared impossible that anyone should merit for himself eternal 
life, even if he lives in the state of unfallen nature (in statu 

^This is the religious robe that is thrown over the irreligious ** merit." Thomas 
says that meritum and merces are the same = retributio as pretium of a deed. Justiiia 
in the strict sense exists only inter eos, quorum est simpliciter a^ualitas. Where 
therefore there is simpliciter justum, there is also simpliciter meritum vel merces. In 
other cases there exists at the most a meritum secundum quid (not justum). But be- 
tween God and men there is the greatest inequality, and all goodness which man has 
springs from God ; hence there is here, not a meritum simpliciter, but certainly a 
meritum ^^ in quantum uterque operatur secundum tnodum suum," But the modus 
humanse virtutis is appointed by God ; "ideo meritum hominis apud deum esse non 
potest nisi secundum persuppositionem divinae oidinationis, ita scil. ut id homo con- 
sequatur a deo per operationem qjMsi vurcedefHy ad quod deus ei virtutem operandi 
deputavit." Still it is to be noted here, that Thomas does not determine merit purely 
according to the arbitrary will of God ; it is estimated rather by the faculty and end 
of man. Yet in the period that followed, there was an adhering always more closely, 
because it was more convenient, and because the conception of God admitted of it 
to pure arbitrariness as respects meritoriousness, and a relying on the Church's being 
initiated into the purposes of this arbitrariness. But in this article Thomas has a still 
further addition that is not without its significance; he continues: "Sicutetiam res 
naturales hoc consecuntur per proprios motus et operationes, ad quod a deo sunt 
ordinatas, differenter tamen, quia creatura rationalis se ipsam movet ad agendum per 
liberum arbitrium. Unde sua actio habet rationem meriti, quod non est in aliis 
creaturis." It is implied therefore in the nature of free will that it acquires merits ; 
in Axt. 4, e,g.^ in addition to the thesis that the meritorious originates ex ordinatione 
divina, Thomas has made an independent use of this thesis. 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 293 

naturae integrae) (Art. 2); for*' eternal life is something good that 
exceeds the proportions of created nature " (vita aeterna est 
quoddam bonum excedens proportionem naturae creatae).^ On 
the other hand, to the question, whether the man who is in a 
state of grace can merit eternal life "ex condigno," no explicit 
answer is given.^ The decision rather runs (Art 3), "meritorious 
work of man can be looked at in two ways ; on the one hand 
in so far as it proceeds from free will, on the other hand 
in so far as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit 
If it is looked at with respect to the substance of work and 
in so far as it proceeds from free will, there cannot here be 
condignity on account of the very great inequality of proportions. 
For it appears congruous, that man working according to his 
virtue should be rewarded by God according to the excellence of 
his virtue. But if we speak of meritorious work with respect to 
what proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit, it is in this 
case meritorious of eternal life ex condigno. For here the value 
of the merit is estimated according to the power of the Holy 
Spirit who moves us to eternal life. The reward also of the 
work is estimated by the dignity of the grace by which man, 
made a participant of the divine nature, is adopted as a son of 
God, to whom inheritance is due in virtue of the very right of 
adoption *' (opus meritorium hominis dupliciter considerari 
potest ; uno modo, secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio, 
alio modo, secundum quod procedit ex gratia spiritus sancti. Si 
consideretur secundum substantiam operis et secundum quod 
procedit ex libero arbitrio, sic non potest ibi esse condignitas 
propter maximam inaequalitatem proportionis. Videtur enim 
congruum, ut homini operanti secundum suam virtutem deus 
recompenset secundum excellentiam suae virtutis. Si autem 
loquamur de opere meritorio secundum quod procedit ex gratia 
spiritus sancti, sic est meritorium vitae aeternae ex condigno. 
Sic enim valor meriti attenditur secundum virtutem spiritus 
sancti moventis nos in vitam aeternam. Attenditur etiam 

1** Nulla natura creata est sufficiens principium actus meritorii vitae seternse, nisi 
superaddatur aliquod supernaturale donum, quod gratia dicitur." 

3'* Ex condigno " = i"^ ^ ^ru^y meritorious way, as contrasted with '* ex congruo"=: 
in the way of a performance, to which, when a benevolent view is taken of it, a 
<:ertain worth and therefore also a certain merit can be attributed. 



294 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

pretium opens secundum dignitatem gratiae, per quam homo 
Consors factus divinae naturae adoptatur in filium dei, cui debetur 
haereditas ex ipso jure adoptionis). The same thing, then, is in 
one respect ex condigno, in another respect ex congruo ! The 
period that followed was not satisfied with this, but attributed to 
human merit a higher worth ; but to this Thomas himself gave 
the impulse. In Art 4 it is shown that the meritorious principle 
is love, whether we look at merit ex ordinatione divina (by divine 
arrangement), or at merit " in so far as man has,^ beyond other 
creatures, the power of acting for himself as a voluntary agent " 
(in quantum homo habet prae ceteris creaturis ut per se agat 
voluntarie agens). In both cases it can easily be shown, that in 
love and in no other virtue merit consists.^ In view of the 
principle " any act of love merits absolutely eternal life *' 

1 Here in Arts. 5-7, as if by way of giving extra measure, Thomas introduces three 
chapters, in which he again expressly shows that one cannot merit the first grace, that 
one cannot merit it for another, and that one cannot merit even the reparatio post 
lapsum. But the sections are important, for the reason that the decided negative 
which Thomas here adopts everywhere was cancelled, or at least modified, in the 
period that followed. With regard to the first point, he explains most distinctly that 
" omne meritum repugnat gratiae," hence: **nu//t4s sibi mereri potest gratiam 
primam." But Thomas did not see that what holds good of the gratia prima holds 
good of all grace. Indeed the gratia prima, just because it has nothing to do with 
merit, is at bottom an extremely dark phenomenon for him, and this explains his 
passing over it so rapidly. He was himself accountable for it therefore, that in the 
period that followed even the communication of the gratia prima was attached to 
ceitain merits. The second point is important, because Thomas, in distinction from 
the later Schoolmen, here gives Christ the honour, and still keeps Mar>' and the 
saints in the background. He recalls first of all his expositions in Arts, i and 3, to 
the effect that in the meritorious works of the justified that which free will does is 
only a meritum dc congruo, and then proceeds: **Ex quo patet, quod merito condigni 
nullus potest mereri alteri primam gratiam nisi solus Christus, quia unusquis-que 
nostrum movetur a deo per donum gratiae, ut ipsa ad vilam aeternam perveniat, et ideo 
meritum condigni ultra banc motionem non se extendii. Sed anima Christi mota est 
a deo per gratiam, non solum ut ipse perveniret ad gloriam vitae aeternae, sed etiam 
ut alios in earn adduceret, in quantum est caput ecclesia. . . . Sed merito congrui 
potest aliquis alteri mereri primam gratiam. Quia enim homo in gratia constitutus 
implet dei voluntatem congruum est secundum amicitiae proportionem, ut deus impleat 
hominis voluntatem in salvalione alterius." Thus the saints are certainly admitted 
by the back-door of meritum de congruo. Regarding the third point it is said: 
** Nullus potest sibi mereri reparationem post lapsum futurum, neque merito condigni, 
neque merito congrui " ; for the former is excluded, because the grace that might be 
the ground of merit is lost by the Fall (** motione prioris gratiae us^e ad hxc [viz., 
the Fall or the mortal sin] non se extendente ") ; the latter becomes in still higher 
degree an impossibility through the impedimentum peccati. 



CHAP, il] the revision of augustinianism. 295 

(quilibet actus caritatis meretur absolute vitam aetemam), it is 
now asked in Art 8^ whether man can merit the increase 
(augmentum) of grace or love, and this question is answered 
roundly in the affirmative ; for ** that to which the motion of 
grace extends falls under merito condigni^ but the motion of any 
Jthing moving extends not only to the ultimate goal of the 
movement, but also to the whole progress in movement ; but the 
goal of the movement of grace is eternal life, while the progress 
in this movement is according to the increase of love. Thus 
therefore the increase of gr^ce falls under merito condigni" 
(illud cadit sub merito condigni, ad quod motio gratiae se 
extendit, motio autem alicujus moventis non solum se extendit 
ad ultimum terminum motus, sed etiam ad totum progr'es- 
sum in motu ; terminus autem motus gratiae est vita aeterna, 
progressus autem in hoc motu est secundum augmentum 
caritatis. Sic igitur augmentum gratiae cadit sub merito 
condigni). On the other hand, the question whether man can 
also tnerit perseverance in grace is denied in the following article, 
and thus the ultimate worth of "merit" is cancelled, and a way 
of return sought for to pure Augustinianism.* 

In order to form a correct historic estimate of this' grace doc- 
trine oif Thomas, we must keep in view, in addition tcHhfi^nJgj^est 
^^ Chri^^^^^f^^^V by which he was really guided, and in addition 
to the practice of the Church, which for him was authoritative, 
that in the philosophy of religion he was determined by Augus- 
tine's doctrines of God and of j)redestination, and in ethics by 
Aristotle's doctrines of God and of virtue. Because both were 
certainties for him, and he therefore made it his business to unite 
the two, he framed that complicated system of doctrine in which 
the dexterous, often paradoxical, subtleties of Augustine, the 
believing sceptic, became as much fundamental tenets as the 
most direct and confident deliverances of his piety. These 
fundamental tenets are then placed in connection .with the 
entirely contrasted thoughts of Aristotle, while with wearisome 
reiteration the definition of God as primum movens is made to 

I " Perseverantia vitas non cadit sub merito, quia dependet solum ex motione divina, 
quse est principium omnis meriti, sed deus gratis perseverantie bonum largitur 
cuicunqiu illud largitur, ^^ 



296 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

serve as the bridge. How entirely dependent Thomas is upon 
Augustine is shown by the doctrine of predestination, which he 
has taken over in all its strictness;' how largely dependent he 

^ See Summa I., Q. 23 : Predestination is the providence of God in relation to 
creaturae rationales ; He alone can give them the ultimus finis, i.^., can '* appoint 
their order." In virtue of His decree, God determines the numenis electorura, and 
in so far as it belongs to divine providence **aliquospermittere a vita aetema deficere,'* 
so also it belongs to it that God should reprobate some. '* Sicut enim prsedestinatio 
includit voluntatem conferendi gratiam et gloriam, ita reprobatio includlt voluntatem 
permlttendi aliquem cadere in culpam et inferendi damnationis pcenam pro culpa" 
(Art. 3), nay, I.e., Thomas asserts with chilling sternness that the reprobatio is also 
a bonum : ** Deus omnes homines diligit et etiam omnes creaturas, in quantum 
omnibus vult aliquod bonum ; non tamen quodcunque bonum vult omnibus. In 
quantum igitur quibusdam non vult hoc bonum ^ quod est vita atema^ diciier eos habere 
odio vel reprobare,^^ According to this, therefore, there is also a bonum which is no 
bonum (for the receiver), and so nothing but the divine will itself: God laves these 
men in hell I But on the other hand it is also said with Augustine : "Aliter se habet 
reprobatio in causando quam prsedestinatio. Nam prsedestinatio est causa et ejus 
quod expectatur in futura vita a praedestinatis, scil. gloria), et ejus quod perci- 
pitur in praesenti, scil. gratise ; reprobatio vero non est causa ejus quod 
est in prssenti, scil. culpae, sed est causa derelictionis a deo (this has not 
its source in prescience) ; est tamen causa ejus quod redditur in futuro, scil. pcenx 
actemae. Sed culpa provenit ex libero arbitrio ejus, qui reprobatur et a gratia 
deserituc" But how shall he not sin if God has forsaken him ? What does it avail 
to add : '* reprobatio dei non subtrahit aliquid de potentia reprobati ; unde cum 
dicitur quod reprobatur non potest gratiam adipisci, non est hoc intelligendum 
secundum impossibilitatem absolutam, sed secundum impossibilitatem condition- 
atam" ? It was not easy for Thomas to construe the doctrine of free will, since in the 
doctrine of God he had applied throughout the thought of the sole divine causality ; 
and in the doctrine of the gubematio (I., Q. 103) had shown that, just like the 
pnncipium mundi, so also the finis mundi is aliquid extra mundum (Art. 2). But if 
the world has no independent end, it follows that the gubernatio must be conceived 
of as implying that by Him alone all things are moved, i.e., brought to their goal ; 
for they themselves cannot move forward to that, quod est extrinsecum a toto universe. 
But by distinguishing the esse and operari, as also the primum movens in things and 
the movens ex se, and finally the gubematio diversa in quantum ad creaturas 
irrationales and in quantum ad creaturas per se agentes, Thomas still succeeds in 
maintaining free will, which indeed he necessarily requires also, in order to get merit; 
see the discussion of freedom of will, I., 83 (Art. i : ** Homo est liberi arbitrii, 
alioquin frustra essent consilia, exhortationes, prxcepta, prohibitiones, praemia et 
poenee. . • . Liberum arbitrium est causa sui motus, quia homo per liberum arbitrium 
seipsum movet ad agendum. Non tamen hoc est de necessitate libertatis, quod sit 
prima causa sui id quod liberum est, sicut nee ad hoc quod aliquid sit causa alterius, 
requiritur quod sit prima causa ejus, Deus igitur est prima causa movens et naturales 
causas et voluntarias. Et sicut naturalihus causis movendo eas non aufert, quin actus 
earum sint naturales, ita movendo causas voluntarias non aufert, quin actiones earum 
sint voluntarias, sed potius hoc in eis facit ; operatur in unoquoque secundum ejus 
proprietatem **), In accordance with this it is constantly emphasised in the determin- 



CHAP. IL] the revision OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 297 

IS Upon Aristotle is shown both by his doctrine of God and 
above all by the Pars Secunda Secundae, the special doctrine of 
morals, in which it is demonstrated that virtue consists in the 
right government of the appetencies and impulses by reason, and 
is then perfected supernaturally by the gifts of grace. Finally, 
in order to get a complete view_of Thomas*s^ doctrine of grace, 
we must add his doctrino^ of the constitution of man,.aLlhe 
primi tive state, of the Jf all, of original sin and of sin, as they are 
developed in f arts^L, Q. 90-102, anJTTT^i ^. 71-89. But we 
may refrain from presenting these here in fuller detail, partly 
because Thomas attaches himself closely to Augustine, partly 
because the chief points have already been specified in the dis- 
cussion of his doctrine of grace.' Yet his doctrine of the consilia 

ing paragraphs on justification that the process of grace realises itself with the consent 
of free will, which consent, however, is at the same time an effect of giace : when 
God infuses grace. He moves us according to our own proper nature, i.e,^ in such a 
way that He moves the free will to the willing acceptance of the gift of grace. The 
same thing is said of the virtues ; on the one hand they are likewise infused ; but on 
the other hand God never acts sine nobis, but always only with the assent of our free 
will ; for the rational creature is so constituted that in its being impelled by God 
towards the goal, it must always be impelled consentiente voluntate. 

^ Let us adduce here only a few of the determining positions. As had been the 
case already with Augustine, the "primitive state" created a special difficulty for 
Thomas, inasmuch as on the one hand eternal life was to be regarded as a gift of grace, 
while on the other hand it was held as certain that it could only be acquired through 
merit. It necessarily followed from this that the view taken of the primitive state 
was indeterminate ; it was not quite conceived of as mere possibilitas boni (in the 
sense of the highest goodness, quod superexcedit naturam), but neither was it quite 
thought of as habitus boni. So Thomas, introducing the idea that the vita seterna 
is a bonum superexcedens naturam, described the natural equipment of Adam as in- 
sufficient for the obtaining of this good, and accordingly assumed that in creation 
there was given to him over and above the natural equipment a special gratia super- 
addita, by the help of which his free will should acquire for itself the merit which fits 
for eternal life ; see I., Q. 95, Art. I : Adam received grace at once at creation (not 
only afterwards) — he was in gratia conditus — for only grace could secure for him the 
rectitudo, which consists in the subordination of the ratio to God, of the inferiores 
virtutes to the ratio, of the body to the soul. But this subordination was 
not ** rationalis " ; for otherwise it would have continued after the Fall ; so it was 
secundum supernaturale donum gratiie. Note also Art. 4 : ** Homo etiam ante 
peccatum indigebat gratia ad vitam seternam consequendam, quae est principalis 
necessitas gratiae." But this view, still a religious one, had already many breaches 
made in it before Thomas* time, and these always increased in number ; see below. 
A further result of this view was that Thomas was not able to identify ihejustiiia 
criginalis with the image of God, so far as this image is incapable of being lost, or 



298 HISTORY* OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

evangelica deserves still a special consideration. This doctrine 
forms the conclusion of his discussion of the doctrine of the new- 
law. But on the other hand the doctrine of grace also culminates 
in the " evangelical counsels," so that in a very real sense these 
represent the summit of the whole course of thought Thomas 
(II., I Q. 108, Art 4) first of all gives the following definition : 
" This is the difference between counsel and precept, that precept 
introduces (importat) necessity, while counsel is made dependent 
on the option (in optione ponitur) of him to whom it is given, and 
so counsels are fittingly (convenienter) added to precepts in the 
new law, which is the law of liberty, but not in the old law, which 
was the law of servitude (servitutis)." Thereupon it is remarked 
that the ** precepts of the new law " are necessary to (but also suf- 
ficient for) eternal life, " but there ought to be counsels regarding 
those things by which man can attain the appointed end better 

say, to unite it witli the innate end of human nature, but viewed it as a supernatural 
gift, which leads beyond the bonum naturale and the finis naturalis. The grounds 
for this view are easily discovered. They lie both in the purpose entertained that the 
coming into existence of merit shall be proved possible, and in the conceiving of 
merit as something supernatural ; in short, in the regarding of asceticism as a state, or 
say opus, which is sup>ernatural, meritorious, and which also conducts therefore to 
eternal life. If the supreme good cannot be so described that even the present life 
as an end is included in it, then nothing remains but to erect two stories, residence in 
the lower story simply serving the purpose of gathering merit for entering the 
higher. The sin which originated with Adam (inherited sin) is loss of the justitia 
originalis, and accordingly, as this latter alone effected the ordinatio partium, disorder,. 
i.e.y rebellion of the lower parts against the higher. On the other hand, the 
principia naturae humanae continue unaffected by the inherited sin, which is both a 
habitus and a culpa, and even the natural capacity of ratio to know and to vrill the 
good is only weakened but not eradicated. The chief sentences are (II., I, Q. 82- 
89) : ** . . . alio modo est habitus dispositio alicujus naturae ex multis composit» 
secundum quam bene se habet vel male ad aliud . . . hoc modo peccatum originale 
est habitus ; est enim quaedam inordinata dispoaitio proveniens ex dissolutione illius^ 
harmoniae, in qua consistebat ratio originalis justitiae, sicut aegritudo corporalis . . . 
unde peccatum originale langt:or naturce dicitur " (this view is partly aesthetic partly, 
pathological, 82, i). *' Peccatum originale materialiter quidem est concupiscentia, 
formaliter vero est defectus originalis justitia? ; " the former is original sin, because 
the ** inordinatio virium animsB praecipue in hoc attenditur, quod inordinate conver- 
tuntur ad bonum commutabile, quae quidem inordinatio communi nomine potest did 
concupiscentia" (82, 3). ** Peccatum originale non magis in uno quam in alio esse 
potest " (82, 4). ** Aniraa est subjectum peccati originalis, non autem caro . . . cum 
anima possit esse subjectum culpx, caro autem de se non habeat quod sit subjectum 
culpae, quidquid pervenit de corruplione primi peccati ad animam, habet rationem 
culpee, quod autem pervenit ad carnem, non habet rationem culpae, sed poenae" (83, !)► 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTXNIANISM. 299 

and more readily" (consilia vero oportet esse de illis, per qua& 
melius et expeditius potest homo consequi finem praedictum). 
Then it is explained that here on earth man is placed between the 
things of this world and spiritual benefits, and that entire devotion 
to the former is removed by the praecepta. Yet on the other hand 
man does not require to surrender the things of this world entirely 
in order to attain to the goal of eternal life C ! ), " but he attains 
more expeditiously by abandoning (abdicando) totally the good 
things of this world, and therefore the evangelical counsels are 
given regarding this/' But the benefits of this world consist in 
the possession of outward goods, in sexual pleasures, and in the 
possession of honours, which relate to the lust of the eye, the 
lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. To relinquish these 
entirely, so far as it is possible — in thfs consists the evangelical 
counsels, and in the adoption of them consists " omnis religio,. 
quae statum perfectionis profitetur *' (all religion which professes 
a state of perfection). The adoption of even one of these 
counsels has a corresponding worth, as, e.g.y when one gives alms 
to a poor man beyond what is obligatory, abstains from marriage 
for a long time for the sake of prayer, or does good to his 
enemies in excess of what is due, etc. The following of these 
counsels is a ground of merit in a still higher degree than the 

" Peccatum originale per prius respicit voluntatem" (83, 3). "Cupiditas est radix 
omnium peccaiorum" (84, i) ; but, on the other hand, it holds good: "quoniam 
inordinate se homo ad temporalia convertens semper singularem quandam per- 
fectionem et excellentiam tamquam finem desiderat, recte ex hac parte superbia, quse 
inordinatus est propriae excellentiae app>etitus, initium omnis peccati ponitur" (84, 2). 
With r^jard to the consequences of sin : ** Principia natune (primum bonum natune) 
nee tolluntur nee diminuuntur per peccatum (empirico-psychological observation, to 
which, however, a certain worth also is given for the religious mode of apprehension), 
inclinatio ad virtutem a r.atura insita (secundum bonum naturale) diminuitur per 
peccatum (ethical observation, but important for religion), donum originalis justitiae 
(tertium bonum natune) totaliter establatum " (religious view, v. 85, i). That sin can 
ever remove totally the inclinatio of the ratio ad bonum is described as unthinkable, 
since, according to Augustine, ** malum non est nisi in bono '* (85, 2). ** Omnes 
vires animse remanent quodammodo destitutae proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinan* 
tur ad virtutem, et ipsa destitutio dicitur vulneratio naturx (vulnus ignorantiae^ 
malitiae, infirmitatis, concupiscentise " v. 85, 3). " Mors et omnes defectus corporales 
consequentes sunt quxdam poense originalis peccati, quamvis non sint intenti a peccanti'*^ 
(85, 5). Death is natural to man secundum naturam universalcm, non quidem a. 
parte formae, sed materisB (85, 6). Q. 86 treats de macula peccati ; Q. 87 de reatu 
pcense ; P. 88 and 89 de peccato veniali et mortal!. 



300 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

following of the commands, so that here in a pre-eminent way it 
holds good, that God gives eternal life to man, not merely in 
grace, but also by virtue of His righteousness. ^ 

Thomas's doctrine of grace, when judged of from the stand- 
point of religion, presents two faces. On the one hand it looks 
back to Augustine,^ on the other hand it looks forward to the 
dissolution which Augustinianism was to undergo in the four- 
teenth century. Whoever examines Thomism carefully, will 
find that its author makes an earnest endeavour, by means of a 
strictly religious mode of view, to assert the sole efficacy of 
divine grace ; but on the other hand he will be compelled to 
note, that at almost all decisive points the line of statement takes 
ultimately a different direction^ the reason being that the effect 
of grace itself is seen in a contemplated end that has a character 
partly hyperphysical, partly moral (** participation in the divine 
nature," and " love," conjoined by the thought that love merits 
eternal life).* But as compared with what was presented by 
Halesius, Bonaventura and others, or, with what was taught at 
the time, Thomism was already a religious reaction ; for those 
theologians yielded to a much more decided tendency to render 

1 See the voluminous exposition in S. II., 2 Q. 184-189, **de statu p>erfectionis " 
(bishops and monks), where in Q. 184, Art. 2, the triplex perfectio is described, and it 
is said of that which is possible here on earth, that it is not indeed attainable that 
one ** in actu semper feratur in deum," but it is attainable that "ah aifectu hominis 
excluditur non solum illud quod est caritati contrarium, sed etiam omne illud quod 
impedit ne affeclus mentis totaliter dirigatur ad deum " ; the whole idea of the consilia 
in particular of virginitas already in Pseudo-Cyprian ( = Novatian) de bono pud. 7 : 
^* Virginitas quid aliud est quam futune vitre gloriosa meditatio?" 

^ It may also be traced back to Augustine that from Thomas, as has been already 
remarked, the specific nature of grace propter Christum and per Christum never re- 
ceives clear expression in the whole doctrine of grace. The connection is simply now 
and again asserted, but is not distinctly demonstrated, while the whole doctrine of 
£race is treated completely prior to the doctrine of the person of Christ, Is that 
accidental ? No, certainly not ! It comes out here again, that in the West, because 
the Mystic-Cyrillian theory was not maintained (Soterology and Soteriology as 
identical), there had come to be — in spite of Anselm — entire uncertainty as to how 
really Christology was to be dogmatically utilised. The only possible solution was 
not found, namely in adhering, without theoretic speculation, to the impression pro* 
duced by the person who awakens spirit and life, certainty and blessedness. 

3 Therefore faith also, and forgiveness of sins play, in spite of all that is said of 
them, an insignificant part. Faith is either fides informis, that is, not yet faiths or 
fides formata, that is, no longer faith. Faith as inward fiducia is a transitional stage. 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 3OI 

the doctrine of grace less effectual by means of the doctrine of 
merit By the appearing of Thomas, a development was 
checkedy which, apart from him, would have asserted itself much 
more rapidly, but which in the end, nevertheless (from the 
middle of the fourteenth century), gained, through the victorious 
conflicts of the Scotists against the Thomists, the ascendency 
in the Church, thereby calling forth a new reaction, which seems 
to have slowly gathered force from the close of the fourteenth 
century.* 

At all points, from the doctrines as to the nature of man and 
as to the primitive state, on to the doctrine of final perfection, 
there are apparent the dissolving tendencies of the later 
scholasticism, led by Halesius, Bonaventura and Scotus. 

I. Halesius, who was also the first to introduce into dog- 
matics the expression " supernatural good " as having a techni- 
cal sense, taught that the justitia originalis belongs to the 
nature of man itself as its completion, but that there is to be 
distinguished from this the gratia gratum faciens, which man 
already possessed in the primitive state as a supernatural good, 
though this was imparted to him, not in creation, but only after 
creation, while Adam moreover earned it for himself meritoriously 
by good works ex congruo,'^ So merit was to begin so early ! 
Thomas knows nothing of this ; but Bonaventura repeated this 
doctrine;^ it is also to be found in Albertus,* and the Scotists 
adhered to it.'^ The advantage which this doctrine offered, 
namely the possibility of reckoning to the perfection of human 
nature itself the justitia originalis, which was distinguished from 
the gratia gratum faciens, was greatly counterbalanced by the 

1 Just in the doctrines of grace and sin did the Scotists gain more and more the 
upper hand ; as regards the other doctrines, their dialectico-sceptical investigations 
were crowned with a smaller measure of success. 

aSchwane, I.e., p. 379 f., S. II., Q. 96, membr. i : "Alii ponunt, ipsum (Adam) 
fuisse conditum solummodo in naturalibus, non in gratuitis gratum facientibus et hoc 
magis susiinendum est et magis est rationi consonum ... Sic noluit deus gratiam 
dare nisi praeambulo merito congrui perbonum usum natuise." 

3 See Schwane, p. 383. 

< See Schwane, p. 384. 

5L.C., p. 391. Werner, Scotus, p. 410 ff. Scotus himself says : "Adam conditus 
fiiit sine omni pcccato et sine gratia gratum fadente" (Report, Par. III. D. 13, Q. 2, 

n. 3)- 



302 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

injury involved in introducing the meritum de congruo into 
paradise itself, and thus placing merit from the beginning side 
by side with the **sole efficacy "of grace. The meritum de 
-congruo is thus earlier than the meritum de condigno ; for the 
latter could only be implanted, and was meant only to be im* 
planted, in Adam after reception of the gratia gratum faciens, in 
order that he might merit for himself eternal life. 

2. There already appear in Thomas (see above p. 297) ap- 
proaches towards the breaking up of the Augustinian doctrines 
of sin and original sin, in so far as he no longer broadly grants 
the proposition, " naturalia bona corrupta sunt " (natural good- 
ness is corrupt), in so far as he defines concupiscence, which is 
in itself not evil, as only "languor et fomes" (tinder), empha- 
sizes the negative side of sin more strongly than Augustine, and 
assumes, on the ground of the ratio remaining, an abiding incli- 
nation towards goodness (inclinatio ad bonum). Yet he cer- 
tainly taught a stricter doctrine than Anselm, who really only 
accentuated the negative side, and began to waver even in 
regard to its character as guilt' To him Duns attached him- 
self, in so far as he at bottom separated the question about con- 
cupiscence from the question about original sin ; the former is 
for him no more the formal in the latter, but simply the ma- 
terial. Thus there remains for original sin merely the being 
•deprived of the supernatural good, from which there then re- 
sulted certainly a disturbing effect upon the nature of man, 
Avhile however nothing was really lost of the natural goodness.^ 

* De conceptu virg. 27 : ** Hoc peccatum, quod originale dico, aliud intellegere 
nequeo in infantibus nisi ipsam, factam p>er inobedientiam Adae, justitiac debits; 
nuditatem, per quam omnes filii sunt irae : quoniam et naturam accusat spontanea 
quam fecit in Adam justitiae desertio, nee personas excusat recuperandi impotentia. 
Quam comitatur beatitudinis quoque nuditas, ut sicut sunt sine omni justitia, ita sint 
absque omni beatitudine." C. 22 : " Peccatum Adze ita in infantes descendere, ut sic 
puniri pro eo debeant ac si ipsi singuli illud fecissent personaliter sicut Adam, nonputo,^^ 
Hence also the idea of the limbus infantium now came always more prominently in 
view. But the rejection of the damnation of infants overturns the whole of 
Augustinianism. 

^Comm. in Sent. II., Dist. 30 Q. 2 : Original sin cannot be concupiscence; for 
the latter is (i) natural, (2) '* . . . tum quia non est actualis, quia tunc ilia con* 
cupiscentia esset actualis, non habitualis, quin habitus derelictus in anima ex pcccato 
mortali non est peccatum mortale^ manet enim talis habitus dimisso peccato per 
_p3enitentiam ; nee etiam ignorantia est^ quia parvulus baptizatus ita ignorat sicut non 



<:hap. il] the revision of augustinianism. 303 

3. According to Thomas the magnitude of the first sin (and 
therefore also of inherited sin) is infinite, according to Scotus it 
is finite. 

4. The Lombard had already taught that inherited sin is 
propagated simply through the flesh, and that the soul created 

baptizatus." One is now eager to hear what original sin then is, and the answer is 
received (D. 32, with an appeal to Anselm) : *^ carentia justitia debita.** "Et si 
obicitur, quod aliqui sancti videntur dicere concupiscentiam esse peccatum originate, 
respondeo : concupiscentia potest accipi vel prout est actus vel habitus vel pronitas in 
appetitu sensitive et nullum istorum est formaliter peccatum, quia non est peccatum 
in parte sensitiva secundum Anselmum. Vel potest accipi, prout est pronitas in 
appetitu ratlonali, t.e.y in voluntate ad concupiscendum delectabilia immoderate, 
quae nata est condelectari appetitui sensitive, cui conjungitur. Et hoc ntodo 
concupiscentia est materiale peccati originalis^ quia per carentiam jusiitia 
ariginalisy qua erat sicut frenum cohibens ipsam ab immoderata deUctcUiomy ipsa non 
positive^ sed per pHvaiionemy fit prona ad concupiscendum immoderate delectabilia.^ 
Very loose also is Dun*s conception of the first sin of man (of Adam) as distinguished 
from the sin of the angels ; it did not arise from uncontrolled self-love, but had its 
root in uncontrolled love for the partner associated with him (Werner, p. 412) ; this 
uncontrolled conjugal love, however, was (i) not libidinous, for in the primitive state 
there was no bad libido ; (2) the act to which Adam allowed himself to be led was not 
In its nature an immoral act, but only transgression of a command imposed for the 
purpose of testing. Adam accordingly sinned only ituiirectly against the command to 
love God, and at the same time transgressed the law of neighbourly love by over- 
passing, through his pliancy, the proper limit. That is a comparatively slight feult, 
and is not equal in its gravity to the smallest violation of a natural rule of morality. 
Compare with this empiristic view Augustine's or Anselm's description of the great- 
ness of the first sin ! In order to see clearly the Pelagianism of Scotus, it must still 
be added that he disputed the doctrine of Thomas, that in the state of justitia originalis 
even the smallest venial sin was unthinkable. According to him only mortal sins were 
impossible ; on the other hand, as man in his original state was just man, such sins 
were quite well possible as do not entail directly the loss of righteousness, but only 
occasion a delay in arriving at the final goal. How small according to this view, in 
spite of all assertions to the contrary, is the significance of the first sin and of original 
sin ! In a disguised way Duns taught, as did Julian of Eklanum, that on the one 
hand there belongs to the natural will the quality that leads il to turn to the good without 
effort, while on the other hand, because it is the will of man^ the possibility of ** small 
sins" was given even in the original state! Occam draws here again the ultimate 
conclusions (v. Werner II., pp. 318 f.). As everything is arbitrary, he asserts on the 
one hand that we must not dispute that it is in God's power to remit to the sinner the 
guilt of sin, and bestow upon him saving grace without repentance and contrition ; on 
the other hand, he denies all inner ideal necessary connection between moral guilt and 
penalty or expiation. ** In this way," Werner justly remarks, "theological Scholas- 
ticism arrived at the oppo5.ite extreme to the idea expressed in the Anselmic theory of 
satisfaction of the inviolability of a holy order^ whose absolute law of righteousness 
implies, that God can only remit the reatus poena? wtermc at the cost of a supreme 
atonement, the making of which transcends all the powers of a mere creature.'* But 



304 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

for the latter is thereby defiled.' He held, therefore, as many 
others did, that inherited sin is inherited sin, in so far as it must 
propagate itself as a contagion (contagium) from Adam onwards. 
At the same time he also touches, on the other hand, on the 
thought of Augustine : ** all these had been the one man, u^ 
were in him materially*' (omnes illi unus homo fuerant, ix.^ in 
eo materialiter erant), though the emphasis lies on the materia- 
liter, so that the matter is to be understood, not mystically but 
realistically.' Now, although Thomas, with the view of giving 
expression to guilty and at the same time placing the accent on 
the will (not merely on the flesh), affirmed, in opposition to this, 
an imputation on a mystical basis,* yet the former idea continued 
to be the ruling one. Now, if in spite of this the guilt of the 
inherited sin is greatly reduced even in Thomas, it appears in 

it was not from laxity that Occam destroyed the principles of Augustinianism ; there 
met in combination in him lather two clearly recognisable factors, **the absolute lack 
of an ideal understanding of the world " (or let us say more correctly, his philosophic 
empiricism), and the greatest interest in determining the necessity of the saving grace 
of Christ simply from revelation itself. But — vestigia terrent ; we can learn by study- 
ing the historical consequences of Occamism, that thinking humanity will not continue 
to be siitisfied, if religion is set before it simply as revelation, and all links are severed 
which bind this revelation with an understanding of the world. From Occam it either 
goes back again to Thomas (Bradwardine and his spiritual descendants, cf. also the 
Platonism of the fifteenth centur}') or passes on to Socinianism. But should it not be 
possible that the history of religion should henceforward render to thoughtful reflection 
the service that has hitherto been rendered to it by Plato's and Augustine's and 
Thomas's understanding of the world ? We shall not be able certainly to dispense 
with an absolute, but it will be grasped as an experience. The Nominalism that sought 
to deliver the Christian religion from the ** science " that perverted it made a disastrous 
failure in carrying on this rightly chosen task, because it understood by religion 
subjection to an enormous mass of material, which, having arisen in history, admits 
of no isolation. 

1 Sent. II., Dist. 31, A. B. : **caro sola ex traduce est." With Augustine the 
propagation of inherited sin is derived from the pleasure in the act of generation 
•* unde caro ipsa, qux concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia poUuitur et corrumpitur: 
ex cujus contactu anima, cum infunditur, maculam trahit, qua polluitur et fit rea, 1.^., 
vitium concupiscentia?, quod est originale peccatum." 

2 So, I think, must Anselm also be understood, de cone. virg. 23. 

^ Adam's sinfiil will (as the will of the primus movens in humanity) is the expres- 
sion of the universal will ; see II., i, Q. 81, Art. i : ** Inordinatio qure est in isto 
homine ex Adam generato, non est vohmtaria voluntate ipsius, sed voluntate primi 
parentis, qui movet molione gcnerationis omnes qui ex ejus origine derivantur." 
Hence inherited sin is not personal sin, but peccatum naturae, the effect of which 
really is that its significance and gravity are greatly lessened* 



CHAP. IL] the revision OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 305 

Duns quite insignificant, notwithstanding all that is said regard- 
ing it Nay, even the consequences of sin are presented by him 
in another h'ght ; for, as inherited sin is simply nothing but loss 
of the supernatural gift (donum), it has not attacked the nature 
of man. This remains, even after the Fall, uninjured. Duns 
really carried on a polemic against the Thomist definition of 
inherited sin as vulneratio naturae (wounding of nature).* Now, 
if we add to this, that by hair-splitting over defilement, 
corruption of nature, moral culpability, and penalty (macula, 
corruptio naturae, reatus culpae, poena), the subject was quite 
brought down to the level of casuistry, we must come to be of 
the opinion that Scholasticism ultimately lost sight entirely of 
the Augustinian starting-poin 

The religious view of sin, v ich even Augustine, indeed, had 
not strictly wrought out, entirely disappeared. Inherited sin 
was an external negative character, which is cancelled by the 
positive character of magical grace. Thus there remained only 
the wretched dregs of a view that had once been full of life, and 
had deeply stirred the soul. 

5. It is obvious that free will also was now bound to have a 
higher value attached to it than the Augustinian-Thomist tra- 
dition admitted of. When once the fundamental thesis was 
abandoned, that moral goodness only exists in connection with 
God (by dependence on Him), when, consequently, the view 
again prevailed that man can make a parade before God with 
his independent works, the process of emptying Augustinianism 
of its contents (for the formulae durst not be surrendered) 
necessarily became inevitable. Thomas himself, indeed, had 
begun, though at first timidly, to assign to free will a special 
range of action as apart from grace. His mode of procedure, in 
giving with the one hand and taking with the other, could not 
continue to be maintained. Bonaventura made predestination 
dependent on prescience, and limited God as cause in His 
relation to rational creatures. He is not entire cause (tota 
causa), but cause along with another contingent cause, i.e.^ with 
free will (causa cum alia causa contingente, scil. cum libero 

1 In Sentent. II., Dist. 29. See at the same place the passage showing that the 
" voluntas in puris naturalibus habet justitiam originalem." 

U 



306 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

arbitrio). For Duns, and likewise for the leading theologians 
till the Council of Constance (and later), the will of the creature 
is the second great power next to God,' and to what they 
correctly lay down in the sphere of empirical psychology, tliey 
also give a material and positive religious significance. But in 
this way they separate themselves both from Augustine and from 
religion ;. for, as a dogmatic theologian, Augustine knows of free 
will only as a formal principal or as the cause of sin. It was the 

1 Bonaventura (in Sentent. I., Dist. 40, Art. 2, Q. i) asks : "an prsedestinatio 
inferat salutis necessitatem ? " He answers : '* prsedestinatio non infert necessitatem 
saluti nee infert necessitatem libero arbitrio. Quoniam pradestinatio non est causa 
salutis nisi includtndo merita (complete apostasy from Augustine), et ita salvando 
liberum arbitrium (that is ambiguous). Ad intelligentiam autem objectorum 
notandum, quod praedestinatio duo importat, et rationem praescientise et rationem 
causae. In quantum dicit rationem causae, n(m necessario ponit effectum^ quia non est 
causa per necessitaietHy sed per voluntatem, et iterum non est tota causa, sed cum 
alia causa contingente, sdl. cum libero arbitrio. Et regula est, quod quotiescumque 
effectus pendet ex causa necessaria et variabili — a necessaria tamquamabuniversali, a 
variabili tamquam a particular! — denominatur a variabili (in this way predestination 
is set aside), quia denominatio est a causa particulari, et effectus^ quia dependet a 
causa contingente i est contingens, Et praeter rationem cause importat rationem 
preescientiae et pnescientia quidem totum includit in cognitione liberum arbitrium et 
ejus cooperationem et vertibilitatem et totum. Et prseterea non est nisi veri, et 
etiam de vero contingente est infallibilis." Duns' doctrine of predestination is very 
complicated. It is dependent on his conception of God, which includes a deter- 
minism of arbitrariness (see Ritschl, I.c., I., pp. 58 f., 64). But just 1)ecaase the 
all-working God is always the contingently working will, the possibility of there 
being contingency in the world is disclosed. God embraces this contingency only 
with His prescience, and this prescience embraces the possible equally with the 
actual. The effect of this is, not only that predestination, as having unity, and as 
being inwardly motived, is cancelled, but that God appears no longer as the absolute 
Being who wills and can do ofte things but as the relative Being who, in an unfathom- 
able way, wills and can do everything possible. Over against such a conception of 
God the will of man can assert itself not only 2&free^ but also as relatively good, and 
so predestination and the grace that is the alone cause vanish, or rather predestination 
remains, in so far as absolute contingency and absolute arbitrariness coincide ; see in 
Sent. I., Dist. 40, in resol : " Prsedestinatio bifariam accipitur. Primo et proprie 
pro actu divinae voluntatis, quo rationalem creaturam ad aetemam eligit vitam seu 
decemit ac determinat se daturum in praesenti gratiam et gloriam in futuro. Secu$uh 
accipitur fusius pro actu etiam intellectus dimni, pro pracognitione vid, quani habet 
deus salutis electorum, qtue quidem pracognitio concomitaiur et consequitur electionem. 
Divina autem voluntas circa ipsas creaturas libere et contingenter se habet Quocirca 
contingenter salvandos pnedestinat, et posset eosdem non predestinare. ... Ex quo 
consequitur, quod is qui damnatus est damnari possit, quandoquidem ob ejus praedes- 
tinntionem non est ejus voluntas in bonum confirmata, ut peccare nequeat." 



CHAP. IL] the revision OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 307 

hereditary fate of mediaeval dogmatic, that through the mixing 
up of knowledge of the world with religion, a relatively more 
correct knowledge of the world became as dangerous, nay, still 
more dangerous to faith, than a knowledge that was false ; for 
every piece of knowledge, in whatever way it was found, was at 
once introduced into the calculation as having religious worth. 
Against the Pelagianism, which, with ever decreasing hesitation, 
made use of Augustinianism simply as "an artistic form of 
speech,'* Bradwardine was the first to take again a strong stand, 
and after his time, the reaction never again disappeared, but 
slowly gathered strength in the fifteenth century, till the time of 
Wesel and Wessel, Cajetan and Contarini, till the time of Luther 
and the Decrees of Trent' 

1 From Bradwardine's preface to his treatise de causa dei c. Pelagium Mtinscher 
quotes the following passage : '* In hac causa, quot, domine, hodie cum Pelagio pro 
libero arbitrio contra gratuitam gratiam tuam pugnant, et contra Paulum pugilem 
gratise spiritualem ! Quot etiam hodie gratuitam gratiam tuam fastidiunt solumque 
liberum axbitrium ad salutem sufficere stomachantur ! aut si gratia utantur, vel per- 
fiinctorie necessariam eam simulant ipsamque se jactant liberi sui arbitrii viribus pro- 
mereri, ut sic saltern nequaquam gratuita, sed vendita videatur ! Quot etiam, deus 
omnipotens, impotentes de sui potestate arbitrii prsesumentes tuce cooperationis auxil- 
ium in op>eiationibus suis recusant, dicendo cum impiis * recede a nobis ' . . . Quin 
iramo et voluntati sax in contingenter fiituris omnimodam tribuunt libertatem, in tan- 
tum ut etiam contra vocem propheticam a tua subjectione exemptionem praetendant 
. . . Et qaot et quam innumerabiles eis favent ! Totus etenim pane mundus post 
Pelagium abiit in errorem, Exsurge igitur, domine, judica causam tuam et sustinen- 
tem te sustine, protege, robora, consolare ! Scis enim quod nusquam virtute mea, 
sed tua confisus, tantillus adgredior tantam causam." It is easily seen that here, as 
in the case of Gottschalk, the spirit and style of Augustine have exeicised an influ- 
ence. But Bradwardine and all the Reformers after him and previous to Luther 
simply went back upon Augustine (Wyclif, IIuss, Wesel, VVessel, Staupitz, etc.). 
Just on that account this movement issued, not in the Evangelical Reformation, but 
in the Articles of Trent, or, in Bajus and Jansen ; see Ritschl, Rechtfertigung, i vol., 
2, ed., pp. 105-140. Ritschl begins these discussions with the not quite accurate 
words : ** The effort will be fruitless to point out in any theologian of the Middle Ages 
the Reformation conception of the doctrine of justification, that is to say, the deliberate 
distinguishing between justificatio and regeneratio." Bradwardine's doctrine of free 
will has been treated in detail by Werner (III., p. 270 ff.). Conscious in the highest 
degree that it was a question about the articulus stantis et cadcntis ecclesise, Bradwar- 
dine revived Augustine's doctrine of the incapacity of free will. Whether he really 
contracted the horizon of the Augustinian theology by tracing back its contents to 
the doctrines of the immutability of the divine thought and will as being its ultimate 
fundamental import (Werner, p. 282 ff. ), is a question I leave undiscussed. Certainly 
t9 me also the determinism seems to come out more strongly in Bradwardine than in 



308 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

6. Most distinct, and fraught with the gravest practical results, 
was the further development of Scholasticism as regards the 
doctrine of justification and the meritorious acquirement of 
eternal life. But how many germs tending to develop into the 
Pelagian deterioration of these doctrines had already been de- 
posited in his system by Thomas himself? I will not repeat 
here what must have already come clearly to view above in the 
account of the Thomist doctrine of grace. The most manifest 
outcome of the further development in Scotism consists in these 
things: (i) that the decisive effect of "prevenient grace" 
became more and more a mere assertion, or, say, a form of 
speech — " co-operating grace " is the only intelligible grace — (2) 
that what, for Thomas, was "meritiim ex congruo" became 
" meritum ex condigno," while the " merita ex congruo " were 
seen in impulses and acts which Thomas had not placed under 
the point of view of merit at all, and (3) that, as a parallel to the 
meritoriousness of attritio, the meritoriousness of" fides informis," 
of the mere obedience of faith, became more highly estimated. 
In this point the corruption was perhaps greatest ; for the fides 
implicita, the mere self-surrender, now became in a sense a 
fundamental dogmatic principle.* 

According to Scotus, the man who does not possess the 
habit of grace (habitus gratiae), who therefore is not in union 
-with God, and hence can do nothing really meritorious to earn 
eternal life, nfiust not be held as having no power to conform his 
conduct to the divine commands. He can still always fulfil 
these commands (otherwise God would require of him some- 
thing impossible, and would be partial were He not to save all), 
and He must fulfil them ; for he must prepare Iiimself for the 
first grace. As it is a natural duty to love God beyond every- 

Augustine ; but Werner has an interest in separating Bradwardine as far as possible 
from Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas, because his doctrine led to Wydif, and to that 
Augustinianism which Catholic theology no longer tolerates, though, as a fact, it is 
the genuine Augustinianism. Yet neither can these theologians, on the other hand, 
make use of the pure Nominalism of Occam. Hence Bradwardine is recognised, so 
£u- as he became ** an involuntary witness (?) as it were, for the necessity of a restora- 
tion of the ecclesiastical Scholasticism on a Thomist basis." 

1 In germ the fides implicita was contained from the begiiming in the Western 
system as a factor to which religious value was attributed. But only in Nominalism 
did this germ open into blossom. 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 309 

thing, it is also a duty that can be fulfilled ; accordingly, even 
the natural righteousness of heathen and sinners is not without 
connection with the supernatural virtues ; indeed, it cannot at 
all be proved that a habit of love produced by supernatural 
gprace is always necessary in order to love God above all ; this 
rather is simply an ecclesiastical tenet Before the Fall at 
least all this held good, and it can be proved, indeed, from 
Aristotle (!) that it holds good also after the Fall. It is with 
this in view that Scotus' doctrines of grace and of merit must be 
understood. In point of fact, merit always precedes grace 
with him, that is to say, first the merit de congruo, then the merit 
de condigno ; * the former entirely neutralises the thought of 

1 See Werner I., p. 418 ff. In Sentcnt. II., Dist. 28, Q. i. Question : " How can 
God forgive guilt without giving grace? videretur enim esse mutatio in deo, si 
Don ponatur in ipso justificaio. Potest ilia opinio confirmari per hoc, quod illud 
prseceptum ' Diliges dominum deum, etc./ est primum, a quo tota lex pendet et 
prophetx. Ad actum igitur hujus prsecepti aliquando eliciendum (actus elicitus 
dilectionis, rationis) tenetur voluntas ; ita quod non potest esse semper omissio actus 
hujus pra^cepti sine peccato mortali. Quodcumque autem voluntas actum hujus 
prsecepti exsequitur, licet informis, et disponit se de congruo ad gratiam gratificantem 
sibi oblatam, vel resistet et peccabit mortaliter, vel consentiet et justificabitur." In 
the following way the Augustinian position that mcritum is the munus dei is justified 
(Dist. 17, Q. I in Kesol.): *'in actu meritorio duo sunt consideranda. Primum 
illud quod praecedit rationem meritorii, in quo includitur substantia et intentio actus 
ac rectitudo moralis. Secundum est ratio meritorii, quod est esse acceptum a divina 
voluntate, aut acceptabile, sive dignum acceptari ad przemium sternum. Quantum 
ad primum, potentia est causa prima et principalis, et habitus causa secunda, cum 
potentia utatur habitu, non e converso ; alias habens semel gratiam nunquam posset 
peccare, cum causa secunda semper sequatur motionem causse primse, nee possit 
movere ad oppositum illius, ad quod causa prima inclinat. Sed accipiendo actum in 
quantum est meritorius talis conditio ei convenit principaliter ab habitu et minus 
principaliter a voluntate, Magis siquidem actus acceptatur ut dignus prsemio, quia 
est elicitus a caritate, quam quia est a voluntate libere elicitus, quamvis uirumque 
nicessario requiratur . . , Actus meritorius est in potestate hominis supposita 
generali influentia, si habuerit liberi arbitrii usum et gratiam, sed completio in rcUione 
meriti non est in potestate hominis nisi dispositive, sic tamen dispositive quod ex dis- 
positione divina nobis revelata " ; observe here the yes and no which comes out in 
these distinctions. Consequently Brad ward ine was right in Bxing down the following 
errors in the reigning Scholasticism : (i) While denying that the meritum is causa 
principalis doni gratiae, it asserts that it is causa sine qua non ; (2) while denying 
that man can of himself merit saving grace, it asserts that he can prepare himself for 
it in a way required of him, and that God then gives His grace, because even in 
naturalibus the forma is at once given to the materia disposita ; (3) while den3ring 
that man can, strictly speaking, initiate the saving process, it asserts that he consents 



310 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. 11. 

prevenient grace, the latter cancels the decisive significance of 
co-operating grace. Everywhere in words, by means of ex- 
tremely forced distinctions, Augustinianism is defended, but in 
reality it is discarded. The position that was not disputed 
even by Thomas and Augustine, that we are not justified un- 
willingly (inviti), receives from Nominalism a Pelagian inter- 
pretation, and the other position, that eternal life is the reward 
for the merits one acquires on the basis of infused grace, is so 
understood that the accent falls on the will, and not on the 
merit of Christ. The divine factor really appears only in the 
"acceptance" (acceptatio), which, as it dominates the whole 
relation between God and man and is arbitrary, does not allow 
merits in the strictest (necessary) sense to be spoken of. The 
Nominalist doctrine is not simple moralismy only in so far as the 
doctrine of God does not admit in any case of a strict moralism. 
This comes out most plainly in Occam, who, indeed, taken 
altogether, presents the paradoxical spectacle of a strongly 
pronounced religious nature finding refuge simply in the arbitrary 
will of God. It is reliance on this arbitrary will alone that frees 
him from Nihilism, and the same applies to the greatest 
theologians of the period of the Reform Councils, till Nicolas of 
Cusa brought about a change. Faith, in order to maintain 
itself, found no other means of deliverance from the inrushing 
floods of world-knowledge than the plank of the divine 
arbitrariness, to which it clung with intense eagerness. These 
theologians were still no moralists — they merely appear such to 

and follows ex proprus viribus ; (4) it asserts that man merits divine grace ex congruo 
(c. Pelag. 39), '* et quia iste error est famosior ceteris his diebus, et nimis multi per 
ipsum in Pelagianum prsecipitium dilabuntur, necessarium >ndetur ipsum diligentiori 
examine perscrutari." The situation at the beginning of the sixteenth century is 
excellently described by Ritschl thus (I., p. 138) : ** The state of things in respect of 
public doctrine which the Reformation found existing was not apprehended and 
represented by the two sides with historical precision and justice. I'he theological 
opponents of the Reformation, who were exclusively Realists, entirely ignore the 
fact, that for a century and a half the Nominalist School had maintained the Pelagian 
doctrine with regard to merita de congruo, and had over-rated the merita de con- 
digno as compared with the merit of Christ, that as a School they had won equal 
public rights with the Realists, and even in respect of science and practice had exer- 
cised a far-reaching influence on the latter. The Reformers on the other hand 
directed their reproaches and charges of Pelagianism, which should have applied only 
to the Nominalist tradition, against Scholasticism in general." 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 3II 

US ; — it was only the Socinians who became that "According 
to Occam the necessity of supernatural habits (habitus) for the 
obtaining of eternal life cannot be proved on grounds of reason. 
What alone could support the proof would be, that the acts of 
faith, love, and hope corresponding to these habits are not 
possible without their supernatural habits ; this, however, cannot 
be proved. A heathen living among Christians can come to 
hold the articles of the Christian faith as true, on grounds of 
purely natural conviction ; a philosophically trained heathen 
can live according to the conviction, acquired in a natural way, 
that God, who is more excellent than all else, must be loved 
above all else. The acts of faith, hope, and love performed by 
such men originate, not from infused, but from acquired habits, 
while these latter can exist even among Christians, and really do 
exist where there is a certain height of moral and intellectual 
development The necessity of supernatural habits is established 
solely by the authority of traditional Church doctrine. Thus then 
as regards the necessity of supernatural habits, we see Occam 
arriving at the most extreme opposition to the necessity of 
supernatural habits that is possible within the limife of 
Church faith." (? !) So Werner.^ That here there is still 
always a keeping within the limits of ecclesiastical faith is an 
instructive assertion of the modern Catholic theologian. The 
truth is, that the displacement of " merits " is here carried so far, 
that the distinction between merita ex congruo and merita ex 
condigno is entirely neutralised ; man can acquire for himself 
in the state of nature merita de condigno ; but God has willed^ 
nevertheless, the necessity of a supernatural habitus and has 
appointed the corresponding institutions.* Now although many 
theologians, such as Occam himself, might feel their religious 
conscience quieted by the reflection that God's arbitrary will is 
for us His mercy, yet the only general effect possible from this 
kind of theology — especially when we recall the attritio and the 

MI., p. 339 f. 

« The Catholic precautionary position lies simply in this, that God need give the 
vita seterna to no one at all, but that that life is in every case an arbitrary gift, the 
source of which is an ordained arrangement. This precautionary position, however, has 
nothing to do with the question about sin and g^ilt, but originates in the general 
doctrine of God. 



312 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. II. 

indulgences, was that there should be recognised in good works the 
instrumental causes {causa instrumentales) for the reception of 
eternal life^ that these good works ^ moreover^ should be judged to 
be meritorious even in their minimised form, and that, finally, 
self subjection to the revelation taught by the Church should be 
held to be a sufficient good motive (bonus motus), which is so 
completed by the Sacraments that it imparts worthiness. In 
this way Nominalism was understood even by the earnest 
Augustinians of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They 
saw in it a denial of the grace of God in Christ, and they did not 
let themselves be led astray from this judgment by the most 
acute distinctions of the Nominalists : '* In vain is much said 
in the way of repudiation ; what the other hears in everything 
is only a No." 

Perhaps the plainest evidence of the decline of an inwardly 
grounded doctrine of salvation and of the growing attachment 
of value to creaturely goodness in the last centuries of the 
Middle Ages, is ilu doctrine of Mary, as embracing both the 
doctrine of her immaculate conception and the doctrine of her 
co-operation in the work of redemption.^ 

I. We have seen above (Vol. V., p. 235) that even Augustine 
had doubts as to whether Mary was subject to the general law of 
sin, and Paschasius Radbertus already knows that Mary was 
sanctified in the womb. Anselm, certainly, who on this point 
was more Augustinian than Augustine, had distinctly rejected 
the immaculate conception (Cur deus homo II. 16) ; but a few 
years after his death we meet with di festival in Lyons (i 140) in 
honour of the immaculate conception of Mary, which proves how 

^ The Pelagian motives underlying the doctrine of Mary are pretty much concealed 
in Scholasticism, but they are clearly apparent on closer inspection. The treatment, , 
moreover, of the doctrine of the human soul of Christ by Scotus and the Scotists is 
also a beautiful demonstration of their Pelagianism, but the description here of this 
complicated line of doctrinal development would take us too far; see Werner I., 
p. 427 ff. ; II., p. 330 ff. What alone reconciles us in the marialogy is the observing 
that pious faith allows itself utterances about the relationship of Mary to God and 
Christ which it does not venture to make about its own relationship. In this sense — 
though it appears paradoxical — there is much that is evangelical in the doctrine of 
Mary. It would be an interesting task to prove this from the doctrine of Mary as 
taught by the Schoolmen individually. 



CHAP, n.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 3I3 

widely current the superstition had already become in the 
lower strata of the Church.^ 

Bernard (ep. 174 ad canonicos Lugd.) spoke against the new 
festival, but used feeble weapons in opposing the idea that was 
•expressed in it : that Mary was already sanctified in the womb, 
and continued also to be protected against all sin ; but that her 
conception was not sinless, otherwise that of her parents must 
also have been so (t\e., if in this way the proof is to be got of the 
sinless birth of Christ); that the sinless conception was a 
prerogative of Christ But if general opinion already held as 
certain what Bernard had laid down as to the sinlessness of 
Mary,« and if, besides this, the act of birth was surrounded with 
the halo of the miraculous, how could the logic in these fancies 
be hindered from pressing on to the ultimate extreme ? The 
Pre-Scotist Schoolmen still denied, it is true, the immaculate 
conception (even Bonaventura) ; but if Thomas adheres to 
sanctification in the womb, and accordingly assumes, immedi- 
ately after the conception, a special influence of grace upon 
Mary, why shall she not be declared exempt from original sin 
itself? Thomas answers, because Christ is the redeemer of all 
men ; but that he would no longer be if Mary had remained free 
from original sin (S. III., Q. 27). Still— everything is possible, 
of course, for Scholasticism — why can it not be assumed that 
Christ's death had a reflex power for Mary? Then, again, 
original sin is a mere privatio, is it not ? Why cannot God, 

iThe history of the worship of Mary is throughout a history in which the 
superstitious religion of the congregations and the monks worked upwards from its 
dark foundations, and determined theology, which reluctantly submitted ; hut, on 
closer view, this is seen to hold good of almost all specifically Western Catholic 
practices and doctrines. The wapddoais &ypa<f>oif the tradition, which is now claimed 
as the papal, that has existed semper, ubique et apud omncs, is (Ae common 
superstition^ which everywhere and always expressed itself in analogous forms. 
In this sense the Catholic position cannot be disputed, that the Romish Church is the 
Church of stable, and yet at the same time living, tradition. This tradition is stable, 
because the lower religious instincts, which are compounded of fear and sensuousness, 
are stable ; it is living, because theology by its devices gradually legitimised these 
instincts. This does not of course imply the denial, that apart from this there was 
another and higher content in the Catholic tradition. For the literature on the 
worship of Mary see Vol. IV., p. 314, and Reusch, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, No. 7. 

' A monk relates that Bernard, who appeared to him in a dream, regretted and 
retracted his doubts about the immaculate conception (see Werner II., p. 349, f.) 



314 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

who can do everything, fill Mary from the beginning with grace?* 
And is this being filled with grace not necessary if she is after- 
wards to act, not merely a passive, but an active part in the 
work of redemption (see sub. 2) ? So Scotus then held it as 
" probable " that Mary was conceived without sin, and therefore 
never possessed the concupiscentia carnis (in Sent III., Dist 3,. 
Q. i). From that time the Franciscans strenuously maintained 
this view against the Dominicans (Thomists). The "reflex 
power of redemption " was the fig-leaf to cover the apostasy 
from Christ, and — to adopt the artistic form of speech — " her 
preservation from contracting original sin was due to its being 
fitting that the Mediator, Christ, should prove Himself in the most 
perfect way to be Mediator by means of some human creature 
that was above all others adapted for this (that is, iperitum de 
congruo on Mary's part, seen ex praiscientia [in the exercise of 
prescience]). The most perfect kind of mediation is that by 
which the injured is anticipated in such a way that he never at 
all begins to be angry about the injury done to him, and there- 
fore lets forgiveness drop as superfluous!^^ 

This proof is extraordinarily instructive, for it containsimplicitly 
the admission that Christ is not the perfect Redeemer of all men,, 
but that He only establishes for them Xh^ possibility of redemp- 
tion. That is correctly thought from a Catholic point of view ; 
but it is not usually plainly expressed in that quarter — nay, for 
good reasons there is a very grave reluctance to express it 
Thomists and Scotists rivalled each other in glorifying Mary ; 
but the former magnified in her the power and splendour of the 
grace which cleanses and purifies, the latter magnified the grace 
itself which originally (ab origine) imparts innocence. But if 
grace is able to do that, why does it not do it always ? It seems, 
then, as if it were not really the glorifying of grace that is aimed 
at Certainly not " Only with the existence of a perfect 
innocence wrought by redeeming grace is a complete representa- 
tion afforded of all orders of rank in human beatification. The 
highest stage is represented by the blessedness of the soul of 
Christ, which was absolutely blessed even on earth without fore- 
going merit ; then follows the holy virgin, whose beatifying merit 

1 III. Dist. 3, Q. I, n. 4 sq. Werner I., p. 460. 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 315 

was her perfect innocence wrought by the grace of redemption ; in 
the third rank stand those whose souls were never stained by 
actual sins ; lastly come those who, from being great sinners, 
have become saints."^ 

In this graduated choir it is manifestly not grace that is of 
effect, but merit. Here again there was a connecting of the idea 
of consilia evangelica with salvation. As is well known, the 
great controversy about the immaculate conception was not 
fought out in the Middle Ages. But the University of Paris 
condemned the rejection of the new doctrine (1387) ; at B&sle 
the " Reform Council " gave its voice for it (36. Sess. 1439), and 
Sixtus IV. (Extravag. III., 12, i) prepared the way for its 
adoption as dogma by forbidding, under the penalty of excom- 
munication, the pronouncing it heresy, though at the same time 
he declared to the world that the apostolic chair had not yet 
decided, />, could not yet overlook the opposition of the 
Dominicans at the time. Not without ground these latter could 
point out that they themselves encouraged the deepest conceiv- 
able veneration of Mary, for their great teacher had taught 
that there should be paid to the holy virgin, not, indeed, latreia 
as to God, nor yet douleia, as to the saints,^ but hyperdouleia.^ 

2. From as early as the time of Irenaeus occasion was furnished,, 
through the fatal parallel drawn between Eve and Mary, for 
attributing to Mary a certain share in the work of redemption ; 
from the idea of the graded hierarchy of angels and saints in 

1 III. Dist. 3, Q. I, n. 7, 12. Werner I., p. 462. On the attitude of the later 
Scotists, l.c. II., p. 347 f. Two sanctifications of Mary were assumed, the first at 
the moment of her being conceived (extinction of original sin, i.e,y of the fomes 
peccati), the second at the moment of her conceiving (impossibilitas peccandi). 
Occam adopted this double sanctification also, but made less of its effects, because 
he did not rate very highly the peccatum originis itself. 

2 Special proofs of the worship of saints and relics are not necessary, as Scholasticism 
added nothing of importance to the practice and theory that prevailed even from early 
times. The doctrine of the saints was attached in the closest way to the doctrine of 
the consilia. The intercession of the saints was proved from the idea of the connection 
of the earthly Church with the heavenly; on their merita, see the doctrine of indulgences. 
Thomas was here also the ruling authority as a teacher, and by his doctrine of the 
merits of the saints he prepared the way for the Pelagianism of the Scotists. 

'Thomas, S. III., Q. 25, Art. 5. Thomas claimed latreia for the cross and the 
image of Christ, III., Q. 25, Arts. 3 and 4; see also II., i Q. 103, Art. 4. 



3l6 HISTORY OF DOGMA. [CHAP. IL 

heaven the impulse was received to worship Mary along with 
Christ as the Queen of Heaven (" in the midst between the Son, 
who is holiest of the holy, and all the saints, royal virgin, gate of 
heaven, way, the ladder from sins " [media inter filium, qui est 
sanctus sanctorum, et alios sanctos, virgo regia, janua cceli, via, 
peccatorum scala] ; the most extravagant veneration even on the 
part of Bernard in the Sermones II. in adv. dom. : " let us also 
strive to ascend by her to Him who by her descended to us ; by 
her to come into the grace of Him who by her came into our 
misery ; by thee may we have access to the Son, O blessed 
contriver of grace, author of life, mother of salvation, that through 
thee He may receive us, who through thee was given to us. 
Thy innocence excuses before Him the guilt of our corruption . . . 
let thy abundant love cover the magnitude of our sins, and thy 
glorious fecundity confer on us fecundity of merits ; our lady, 
our mediatrix^ our advocate, reconcile us to thy Son, commend 
us to thy Son, represent us before thy Son ! Grant, O blessed 
one, by the grace which thou hast found . . . that He who 
through thy mediation deigned to partake of our infirmity and 
misery, may, through thy intercession also, make us partakers of 
His glory and blessedness " [studeamus et nos ad ipsum per earn 
ascendere, qui per ipsam ad nos descendit; per eam venire in 
gratiam ipsius, qui per eam in nostram miseriam venit ; per te 
accessum habeamus ad filium, O benedicta inventrix gratis, 
genetrix vitae, mater salutis, ut per te nos suscipiat, qui per te 
datus est nobis. Excusat apud ipsum integritas tua culpam 
nostrae corruptionis . . . copiosa caritas tua nostrorum cooperiat 
magnitudinem peccatorum, et foecunditas gloriosa fcecunditatem 
nobis conferat meritorum ; domina nostra, mediatrix nostra, 
advocata nostra, tuo filio nos reconcilia, tuo filio nos commenda, 
tuo filio nos repraesenta ! fac, O benedicta, per gratiam quam 
invenisti . . . ut qui te mediante fieri dignatus est particeps 
infirmitatis et miseriae nostrae, te quoque intercedente participes 
faciat nos gloriae et beatitudinis suae']). From here it was only 

1 Bernard is also fond of variations on the thought that the Son will hear the mother, 
the Father the Son. ** Hrec peccatorum scala, hzec mea maxima fiducia est, hjec tota 
ratio spei meae." The Son cannot refuse to hear the mother; for the "invcnbti 



CHAP. II.] THE REVISION OF AUGUSTINIANISM. 317 

a step. to the doctrine of Scotus and the Scotists, that Mary- 
cooperated, not only passively, but actively^ in the incarnation. 

gratiam apud deum" is still in force. These thoughts passed over in succum et 
sanguinem of Catholicism ; they were disseminated especially by the Franciscans. 

> On the proof, see Werner I., pp. 433 f., 435 ff.; II. 352 ff. In Duns the idea 
coheres with his genecal zoological ideas; yet for him it has also independent 
significance. 



Printed by Cowan &* Ctf., Limited^ Ptrth. 



SELECTED LIST 

OP 

AV^ILLIAIVIS & NOEGhATE'S 



KAUTZBCH (B.) An Outline of the History of the Literature 
of the Old Tefltament, with Chronological Tables for the 
History of the Israelites, and other aids to the Explana- 
tion of the Old Testament. By E. Kautzsch, Professor 
of Theology at the University of Halle. Reprinted 
from the " Supplement'* to the translation of the Old 
Testament, edited by the aathor. Translated by 
John Taylor, d.lit., m.a. Demy 8vo. 224 pp. 6*. 6rf. 

HABTTN (Rev. H. J.) For Christ and the Truth. A series 
of religions studies which give evidence of wide reading 
of the most recent theological and scientific literature. 
Or. 8vo. 234 pp. Fine antique paper 5«. 

A Study of the Saviour in the Newer Light ; or, A 

Present-day Study op Jesus Christ. By Alexander 
Robinson, b.d., formerly Minister of the Parish of 
Kilmun, Argyleshire. Second Edition, Revised and 
partly Re-written. Demy 8vo. 404 pp. 7$. GJ. 

Semitic Influence in Hellenic Mytholog^. With special 

Reference to the Recent Mythological Works of Pro- 
fessor Max Muller and Mr. Andrew Lang. By Robert 
Brown, Junior, p.8.A.,M.R.A.8.,etc. Demy 8vo. cloth 7*. ^d. 

Theological Translation Library. 

NEW SEBIES. 

Now ready, Vol. I. of the Fourth Year. Demy 8vo. 

105. 6(1. 

A BISTORT OF DOOMA. 
Vol. V. By Dr. Adolph Harnack, Ordinary Professor of 
Church History in the University, and Fellow of the Royal 
Academy of Science, Berlin. Translated from the Third 
German Edition by Jamks Millar, b.d.. Edited by Rev. 
Professor A. B. Bruce, d.d. 
Volumes VI. and VII. completing this work are in the press. 
Earlier Volumes of the New Series : 
History of Dogma. Vols. I. and II. Translated from the 
Third German Edition by Rev. Neil Buchanan. Edited 
by Rev. Professor A. B. Bruce, with a Preface specially 
written for this Edition by the Author. Vol. 111. 
Translated by James Millar, b.d. Vol. IV. Translated 
by E. B. Speirs, n.n., and James Millar, b.d. 8vo. cloth. 

Each lOs 6d. 



A History of the Hebrews. By B. Kittel, Ordinary Pro- 
fessor of Theology in the University of 13realan. Trans- 
lated by the Bevs. Hope W. Hogg, b.d., and B. B. 
Speirs, d.d. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth. Each lOs. 6d, 

The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church. By Carl Yon 
Weizsiicker, Professor of Chnrch History in the Univer- 
sity of Tubingen. Translated from the Second and Be- 
vised Edition by James Millar, b.d. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth. 

Each lOs. 6J. 

The Comnmnion of the Christian with God. A Discussion in 
agi'cement with the View of Lather. By W. Hermann, 
Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the University of 
Marburg. Translated from the Second Gorman Edition, 
with Special Annotations by the Author, by J. Sandys 
Stanyon, m.a. 8vo. cloth 10s. 6d. 

Theological Translation Fund Library. 

FIRST SERIES. 

The price of the Yolnmes of this Series is now reduced to 

6s. per Yolnme. 

The Series Comprises : 
BAUB (F. C.) Church History of the First Three Centuries. 

Translated from the Third Grerman Edition. Edited by 
the Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. Each 6«. 

BADB (F. C.) Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and 
Work, his Epistles and Doctrines. A Contribution to a 
Critical History of Primitive Christianity. Second 
Edition. By Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. Each 6s. 

BLEEK'S Lectures on the Apocalypse. Edited by Rev. Dr. 
S. Davidson. 6s. 

EWALD (H.) Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testa- 
ment. Translated by Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 5 vols. 
8vo. Each 6«. 

EWALD (H.) Commentary on the Psalms. Translated by 
Rev. E. Johnson, m.a. 2 vols. 8vo. Each 6s. 

EWALD (H.) Commentary on the Book of Job, with Trans- 
lation by Professor H. Ewald. Translated from the 
German by Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 1 vol. 8vo. 6s. 

HATJ8BATH (Professor A.) History of the New Testament 
Times. The Time of Jesus. By Dr. A. Hansrath, Professor 
of Theology, Heidelberg. Ti*anslated, with the Author's 
sanction, from the Second German Edition, by Revs. C. T. 
Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 vols. 8vo. Each 6s. 

KEIM (Th.) History of Jesus of Nazara. Considered in its 
connection with the National Life of Israel, and related 
in detail. Translated by Arthur Ransom and Rev. E. M. 

Geldart. 6 vols. 8vo. Each 6s. 

Vol. I. will not be sold without VoIb. II.-VI. 



3 

EUENEN (A.) The Relijrion of Israel to the Fall of the 
Jewish State. Translated by A. H. May. Second Edition. 
3 vols. 8vo. Each 6s. 

FFLEIDEBBB (Professor 0.) The Philosophy of Relijrion on 

the Basis of its History. Translated by Rev. Allan 
Menzies and Rev. Alex. Stewart, of Dnndee. 4 vols. 8vo. 
cloth Each 6s. 

PFLBIDEBEB (Professor 0.) Paulinism ; a Contnbntion to 
the History of Primitive Christian Theology. Translated 
by E. Peters. Second Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. Each 68. 

Protestant Commentary on the New Testament; with 

General and Special Introductions to the Books, by 
Lipsins, Holsten, Lang, Pfleiderer, Holtzman, Hilgenfeld, 
and others. Translated by Rev. F. H. Jones. 3 vols. 
8vo. Each 6s. 

REVILLE (Rev. Dr.) Prolegomena of the History of Religions. 

With Introduction by Professor Max Miiller. 6«. 

8GHRADER (Professor E.) The Cuneiform Inscriptions and 

the Old Testament. Translated by Rev. Owen C. White- 
house. 2 vols. 8vo. With Map Each 6s. 

ZELLER (E.) The Acts of the Apostles Critically Examined. 

To which is prefixed Overbeck's Introduction from 
De Wette's Handbook. Translated by Joseph Dare. 
2 vols. 8vo. Each 6*. 

Uniform vnth the above Series, 

HAUSRATH (A.) History of the New Testament Times. The 
Time of the Apostles. Translated by Leonard Huxley ; 
with an Introduction by Mrs. Humphry Ward. 4 vols. 

42«. 

THE HIBBERT LECTURES. 

Each Volume uniform in original biniling. Demy 8oo, Cloth. 
lOs. 6d. Cheap Editions, Demy Svo, Cloth, Price 
*6s. 6d, each. Uniform in style and binding. 

1894.— Rev. Principal DRUMMOND. Via, Veritas, Vita. 
Lectures on Christianity in its most Simple and Intel- 
ligible Form. 2nd Edition. 

1893.— Rev. C. B. UPTON, BA. Lectures on the Bases of 
lieligious Belief. 

1892.— C. 0. MONTEPIORE. Lectures on the Origin and 
Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of tha 
Ancient Hebrews. 3rd Edition. 

1891.— Count aOBLET d'ALVIELLA. Lectures on tliu 
Evolution of the Idea of God. Translated by Rov. P. H. 
Wiuksteed. 2ud Edition. 



1888.— Bev. Dr. HATCH. Lectures on the Inflnence of Greek 

Ideas and Usages upon tho Christian Church. Edited by 

Dr. Fairbairn. 7th Edition. 
1887.— Professor A. H. 8ATCE. Lectures on the Religion ol' 

Ancient Assyria and Babylonia. 5th Edition. 
1886.— Professor J. RHT8. Lectures on the Origin and 

Growth of Religion as illustrated by Celtic Heathendom. 

2nd Edition. 
1885.— Professor PFLEIDEBEB. Lectures on the Influence 

of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity. 
Translated by the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 3rd Edition. 

1884.- Professor ALBERT REVILLE. Lectures on the 
Ancient Religions of Mexico and Peru. 2nd Edition. 

1888.— The Rev. CHARLES BEARD. Lectures on the Refor- 
mation of the Sixteenth Centnry in its Relation to 
Modem Thought and Knowledge. 3rd Edition. 

1882.— Professor ETTENEN. Lectures on National Religions 
and Universal Religions. 3rd Edition. 

1881.— T. W. RHYS DAVIDS. Lectures on the Origin and 

Growth of Religion as Illastrated by some Points in the 
History of Indian Buddhism. 3rd Edition. 

1880.— M. ERNEST RENAN. Lectures on the Influence of 
the Institutions, Thought and Culture of Rome on 
Christianity, and the Development of the Catholic 
Church. Translated by the Rev. Charles Beard. 
4th Edition. 

1897.— P. LE PAGE RENOUF. Lectures on the Religion of 
Ancient Egypt. 2nd Edition. 



Works published for the Hthbert Trustees. 

WALLIS (H. W.) The Cosmology of the Rig- Veda. 8vo. 

cloth, bs, 

POOLE (R. L.) Illustrations of the History of Mediroval 
Thought in the Depaiiiments of Theology and Ecclesias- 
tical Politics. 8vo. cloth. 10s, 6d. 

STOKES (G. J.) The Objectivity of Truth. 8vo. cloth. 5*. 

EVANS (G.) An Essay on Assjnriology. With an Assyrian 
Tablet in Cuneiform type. 8vo. cloth, bs. 

SCHURMAN (J. G.) Kantian Ethics aud the Ethics of 

Evolution. A Critical Study. 8vo. cloth. 5**. 
MAGAN (R. W.) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. An 

Essay, in Three Chapters. 8vo. cloth, bs. 

WIGKSTEED (P. H.) The Ecclesiastical Institutions of 

Hollaud, ti^eated with i:>pecial refei^nce to the Position 
and Prospects of the Modern School of Theology. 8vo. Is. 



5 

ALVnSLLA (Count Goblet d') The Contemporary Evolution 

of Religions Thought in England, America, and India. 
Translated from the French by the Rev. J. Moden. 8vo. 
cloth. 10s. 6d. 

BARNABAS' Epistle, in Greek, from the Sinaitic Manu- 
script of the Bible, with a Translation by S. Sharpe. 
Ci-own 8vo. cloth. 2*. 6d. 

BATNES (H.) The Idea of God and the Moral Sense in the 

light of Language ; being a philological Enquiry into 
the rise and growth of Spiritual and Moral Concepts. 
8vo. cloth. 10^. 6d. 
BEARD (Rev. Dr. C.) The Universal Christ, and other Ser- 
mons. Crown 8vo. cloth. 7s, 6d, 

Port Royal. A Contribution to the History of 

Religion and Literature in France. Cheap Edition. 
2 vols. Crown 8vo. cloth. 12*. 

BEARD (Rev. Dr. John R.) The Autobiography of Satan. 

Crown 8vo. cloth. 7s. 6d. 
Bible, translated by Samuel Sharpe, being a Revision of the 
Authorized English Version. 6th Edition of the Old, 
10th Edition of the New Testament. 8vo. roan. 5*. 

CHANNINO'S Complete Works, including "The Perfect 
Life," with a Memoir. Centennial Edition. 848 pp. 
8vo. cloth. 2s. 

CLARK (Archd. Jas.) De Successione Apostolica nee non 

Missione et Jurisdictione Hierarchiae Anglicanae et 
Catholicae. 8vo. (Georyetovm, Guiana.) Cloth. 21^. 

Seven Ages of the Church ; or Exposition of the 

Apocalypse. Sewed. Is. 

Common Prayer for Christian Worship : in Ten Services for 
Morning and Evening. 32mo. cloth. Is. 6d. Also in 
8vo. cloth. 3s. 

DRUMMOND (Dr.) Philo Judaus; or, the Jewish Alexan- 
drian Philosophy in its Development and Completion. 
By James Drummond, ll.d.. Principal of Manchester 
New College, Oxford. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth. 21a'. 

Echoes of Holy Thoughts ; arranged as Private Meditations 
before a First Communion. 2nd Edition, with a 
Preface by Rev. J. Hamilton Thorn. Printed with red 
lines. Fcap. 8vo. cloth. Is. 

FiaO (E. a.) Analysis of Theology, Natural and Re- 
vealed. Crown 8vo. cloth. (5s. 

FOUR Gospels, The, as Historical Records. 8vo. cloth. 15*. 

FUERST (Dr. Jul.) Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the 

Old Testament. 5th Edition, improved and enlarged. 
Translated by Rev. Dr. Samuel Davidson. Royal 8vo. 
cloth. 21 if. 



6 

GILL (0.) The Bvolution of Ohristianity. By Charles Gill. 
2nd edition. With Dissertations in Answer to Criticism. 
8yo. cloth. 128, 

GILL (C.) The Book of Enoch the Prophet. Translated from 
an Ethiopia MS. in the Bodleian Library, by the late 
Richard Laarence, ll.d., Archbishop of Cashel. The 
Text corrected from his latest Notes by Charles Gill. 
Ete-issne, 8yo. cloth, bs. 

GOULD (Bev. 8. Baring) Lost and Hostile Gospels. An 
account of the Toledoth Jesher, two Hebrew Gospels 
circulating in the Middle Ages, and Extant Fragments 
of the Gospels of the first Three Centuries of Petrine 
and Pauline Origin. Crown 8vo. cloth. 7«. 6d. 

HABDT (B. Spence) Manual of Buddhism in its Modern 
Development. Translated from Singhalese MSS. 2nd Edi- 
tion, with a complete Index and Glossary. 8vo. cloth. 21«. 

HATTSBATH (A.) History of the New Testament Times. 

The Time of the Apostles. Translated by Leonard 
Huxley; with an Introduction by Mrs. Humphry Ward. 
4 vols. 4i2s. 

Hebrew Texts, in large type for Classes : 

Genesis. 2nd Edition. 16mo. cloth. Is, 6d, 
Psalms. 16mo. cloth. Is. 
Isaiah. I6mo. cloth. Is. 
Job. 16mo. cloth. 1^. 

HEMAN8 (Chas. I.) Historic and Monumental Borne. A 
Handbook for the Students of Classical and Christian 
Antiquities in the Italian Capital. Ci'own 8vo. cloth. 
lOs. 6d. 

HOEBNINa (Dr. B.) The Karaite MSB., British Museum. 
The Karaite Exodus (i. to viii. 5) in 42 Autotype Fac- 
similes, with a Transcription in ordinary Arabic type. 
Together with Descriptions and Collation of that and 
five other MSS. of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in 
Arabic Characters in the same Collection. Royal 4to. 
cloth, gilt top. £2. 12*. Gd. 

JONES (Bev. B. Crompton) Hymns of Duty and Faith, 
selected and arranged. 247 pp. Foolscap 8vo. cloth. 
2nd Edition. Ss. 6d, 

Chants, Psalms, and Canticles, selected and pointed 

for Chanting. 18mo. cloth. Is. 6d. 

Anthems, with Indexes and References to the Music; 

I8mo. cloth. Is. Sd. 

The Chants and Anthems, together in one vol. Cloth. 2*. 



A Book of Prayer, in Thirty Orders of Worship, with 

Additional Prayers and Thanksgivings. ISmo. cloth. 
25. 6d. 

The sanie^ with Chants, in one vol. 18mu. cloth. 3s, 



EBNNBDT (Rev. Jas.) Introdnotion to Biblioal Hebrew, 

presenting Gradaated Instruction in the Language of 
the Old Testament. By James Kennedy, b.d., Acting 
Librarian in the New College, and one of the additional 
Examiners in Divinity at the University, Edinburgh. 
8vo. cloth. 128. 

Studies in Hebrew Synonyms, bs, 

MALAN (Rev. Dr. S. G.) The Book of Adam and Eve, also 
called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. A 
Book of the Early Eastern Church. Translated from the 
Ethiopic, with Notes from the Kufale, Talmud, Mid- 
rashim, and other Eastern Works. 8vo. cloth. 7$, 6d, 

MALAN (Rev. Dr. S. G.) Original Notes on the Book of 

Proverbs. According to the Authorized Version. Vol. I. 

Chap. i. to X. 8vo. cloth. 12s, 

Vol. II. Chap. xi. to xx. 8vo. cloth. 12«. 

Vol. III. Chap. xxi. to xxxi. 8vo. cloth. 12». 

MARTINEATT (Rev. Dr. James) The Relation between Btbics 

and Religion. An Address. 8vo. sewed. Is. 

MARTINEAU (Prof. Rnssell) The Roots of Christianity in 

Mosaism. 8vo. sewed. Is. 

MA8SET (Gerald) A Book of the Beginnings. Containing 
an Attempt to recover and reconstitute the lost Origines 
of the Myths and Mysteries, Types and Symbols, Religion 
and Language, with Egypt for the Mouthpiece and 
Africa as the Birthplace 2 vols. Imperial 8vo. cloth. SOs. 

The Natural Genesis ; or Part the Second of " A 

Book of the Beginnings." 2 vols. Imperial 8vo. cloth. 30«. 

Our Ghristian Creed. 2nd and greatly Revised Edition. 
Crown 8vo. cloth. 3*. 6d. 

FERRIN (R. S.) Religion of Philosophy, the, or the Unifica- 
tion of Knowledge : a Comparison of the chief Philo- 
sophical and Religious Systems of the World. 8vo. 
cloth. 168. 

QTTARRT (Rev. J.) Genesis and its Authorship. Two Dis- 
sertations. 2nd Edition, with Notice of Animadversions 
of the Bishop of Natal. 8vo. cloth. 12^. 

SADLER (Rev. Dr.) Prayers for Christian Worship. Crown 
8vo. cloth. Ss. 6d. 

Gloset Prayers, Original and Compiled. 18mo. cloth. 

Is. 6d. 

SAVAGE (M. J.) Beliefs about the Bible. 8vo. cloth. 7«. 6c/. 

SHARPE (Samuel) History of the Hebrew Nation and its 
Literature. With an Appendix on the Hebrew Chrono- 
logy. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth. 4s«. 6d. 

Gritical Notes on the Authorized English Version of 

the New Testament. 2nd Edition. 12mo. cloth. Is. Gc/. 



8 

BHASPB (Bamnd) Short Notes to accompanj a Revised 
Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. 12mo. cloth. Is. 6d. 

STBAUBB (Dr. D. P.) Life of Jesus ; for the People. The 
Anthorized English Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth. IO5. 6(f. 

STTPFDBLD. Life of the Bev. Robert Rodolph, Author of 
" The Crown of Jesus.** Photogravure Portrait. Crown 
8vo. cloth. 4ff. 6cl. 

TAUCHHITZ'S English New Testament. Authorized Version ; 
with Introduction, and various Readings from the three 
most celebrated Manuscripts of the Original Greek Text. 
By C. Tischendorf. 12mo. sewed, Is. (yd. ; cloth, 2s. 

TATLEB (Bev John James) An Attempt to ascertain the 
Character of the Fonrth Gospel, especially in its relation 
to the first Three. 2nd Edition. 8vo. cloth, bs. 

Testament, the New. Ti-anslated from Griesbach's Text by 
S. Sharpe, Author of " The History of Egypt." 14th 
Thousand. Fcap. 8vo. cloth. Is. 6d. 

VICKEBB (J.) History of Herod; or, Another Look at a 
Man emerging from Twenty Centuries of Calumny. 
Crown 8vo. cloth. 6«. 

The Beal Jesus ; a Review of his Life, Character, 

and Death, from a Jewish Standpoint. Crown 8vo. Os. 
The Cruciflxion JHystery. Crown 8vo. cloth. Ss. iid. 



WBIGHT (Bev. C. H. H.) Book of Genesis in Hebrew Text. 

With a critically revised Text, various Readings, and 
Grammatical and Critical Notes. Demy 8vo. Reduced to 
8«. 6(2. 

Book of Buth in Hebrew Text. With a critically 

revised Text, various Readings, including a new Colla- 
tion of Twenty-eight Hebrew MSS., and a Grammatical 
and Critical Commentary ; to which is appended, The 
Chaldee Targum. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

WBIGHT (0. H. Bateson, d.d.) The Book of Job. A new 

critically revised Translation, with Essays on Scansion, 
Date, etc. 8vo. cloth. 6s. 

Was Israel ever in Egypt? or, a Lost Tradition. By G. H. 
Bateson Wright, d.d., Queen's College, Oxford ; Head- 
master Queen's College, Hong Kong. 8vo. linen. 7s. 6d. 
" A contribotion of considerable weight to the litcratare of the 
higher criticism. The work is one which well deseryei) the attention 
of all serions students of the higher criticism, and while it sums up 
and conflrms some conclusions of prior critics, it has an original and 
independent value as offering a new theory of the Exodus. It is a 
carefully reasoned and acute book, which will add to its author's 
already high reputation as a critic of the Scriptures.'' — SeoUman. 

WBIGHT (Rev. J.) Grounds and Principles of Religion. 

Crown 8vo. cloth, lis. 



A 



^mrrm 




3 2044 020M^3 



f 



\ ■' 



■■-rJ- 



I